Re: New devel release of LBACACHE... current "bug"-list

Hi folks, I found some inconveniences with LBAcache:

- the easter egg size (when you give size 00) of course did not work,
  because it was too big. No real problem.

- Tom writes that without the STAK option FreeDOS would crash. More
  people having that problem? If yes, I can indeed make STAK the default.
  If I do so, would you like having an NOSTAK option? I remember other DOS
  versions having a bigger stack on their own, so those would not need the
  LBAcache internal stack, which would save you some 500 bytes of RAM.

- I have shortened the help message and will be changing the output of
  LBAcache INFO to use TWO columns, if nobody complains.

- I am not satisfied with the slot allocating algorithm. Even when I use
  25 megs of XMS, new sectors cause old sectors to leave the cache. This
  causes efficiency problems. So I will change that, to use MORE CPU time
  while keeping LESS of the allocated XMS cache idle :-).

Those are all problems that I remember for now.

PS: I would like to know if the new version actually performs WORSE
than the old version for anybody. Then I definitely need to work on
that allocation algorithm :-).

Eric


PS: The percentage in the human-readable LBAcache INFO output is also
sometimes calculated wrong, no big problem. And it seems only int 21.6,
not int 21.2 is subject to redirection (> and |) ? Is this a FreeCOM or
kernel bug? Just in case you want to "lbacache info | mailto eric"...
I will fix that.

--
Eric