From: marcov@stack.nl   
      
   On 2004-09-27, L D Blake  wrote:   
   >>to work with so I can figure out a happy medium between what would   
   >>work in Windows and what would work best for the application.   
   >   
   > And therein lies your mistake!  You are trying to acquire and keep a fixed   
   > amount of memory for your program to work in... This simply is *not*   
   necessary   
   > anymore.  In fact, for large chunks of memory it's a *bad* thing...   
   >   
   > Where the crossed wires are coming from is that you seem stuck on this idea   
   > that you have to somehow magically gain ownership of a big chunk of memory   
   > when we are telling you this is no longer good practice.   
      
   > From your last set of descriptions I get the impression you are trying to   
   > buffer some huge number of data records in memory because you believe that   
   > writing and fetching from disk is painfully slow.   
      
   Hmm, I don't agree. Mem transfer and CPU speed also increased. The ratio is   
   better,   
   but not much.   
      
   However I miss "cache utilization" in this story.  Often people try to max   
   the cache unnecessarily, since a small part already gives 95% of the   
   performance advantage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)