[sldev] Texture Cache: A summary of The Plan as it stands

[Dahlia Trimble]

I wasn't talking about how the current implementation performs, rather I was
attempting to list the factors that *may* affect the improvements gained
from a new design that stored *raw* (uncompressed) image data. Assuming such
a design does not yet exist, it seems unlikely that it has been tested.

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Argent Stonecutter <secret.argent at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2008-06-13, at 21:18, Buckaroo Mu wrote:
>
>> Dahlia Trimble wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that there may be quite a few factors that affect the speed of
>>> retrieving raw image data from a hard disk, the operating system and file
>>> systems in use, whether disk compression is in place, the transfer rate and
>>> seek time of the disk hardware, the size and efficiency of the disk cache,
>>> how badly fragmented the drive is, how many other processes on the machine
>>> are competing for disk access....
>>>
>>
> I would believe that except for the experimentation I did with a ramdisk.
>>
>
> Agreed. I have a 4GB SATA battery backed SDRAM (not flash) disk, and
> putting the texture cache on that RAM disk primarily reduces the disk noise
> from my computer... it does not speed things up enormously.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080613/dec1377a/attachment-0001.htm