>I've posted this question many times. I am very interested in knowing
>myself. Although, I'm not interested in saving miliseconds here or there.
>However, if I can cut off significant processing time by switching from
>dynamic to static, then I would. Nobody has ever prooved this to that
>extent. The zero administration of dynamic files is worth a very great
>deal to me.
>If anyone out there has made the switch because of performance issues,
>please share ! We would all like to know (Ive been asked this many times
>by many people).
I'm busy writing the MaVerick file system at the moment. Everything's
dropping quite neatly into place, and while I (obviously) can't speak
for any other version, MaVerick will use 95% the same code across all
file-types. So about the only overhead it will suffer is the automatic
splitting/joining. And even then that won't impact performance much, as
it'll have an "intelligent" mechanism that most of the time will even
suppress whether it's worth checking for a split/merge (on the
assumption that it isn't).
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Trousers with a single hole in their waistband are topologically equivalent
to a doughnut. These sugarcoated trousers have yet to catch on at fast-food
outlets! (SuperStrings by F. David Peat)
If replying by e-mail please mail wol. Anything else may get missed amongst