From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Lundin?= <b.f.lundin@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How to optimize use of RAM/disk access ?
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 16:21:53 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <p6c5mc$d2u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <f1cc3c80-9b31-4a74-a201-0e209a789fc4@googlegroups.com>
 <1892f04b-0223-4060-90a7-91983f775f18@googlegroups.com>
 <752bb990-b70a-4fce-8cd7-91d4f8ee7ea1@googlegroups.com>
 <91e9a70d-0c7a-4577-a48f-8f31b60eadb2@googlegroups.com>
 <p5p9v3$1v69$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <fcb77f00-5c4b-44f1-aa48-17ca837ac0e6@googlegroups.com>
 <p6644h$m4e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c817535b-6125-4032-b167-e50d00180d53@googlegroups.com>
 <2atg8dlmjhr7rokf0b4rc4r1h90546q4oi@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:21:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="98d64a115775e80e9cd9ef0ff325eb1d";
	logging-data="13406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uy96aQzvbyO4uMqjmb57E"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
In-Reply-To: <2atg8dlmjhr7rokf0b4rc4r1h90546q4oi@4ax.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p+jyrDMiNEgm2huni7GpJqzlmng=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50502
Date: 2018-02-18T16:21:53+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2018-02-17 19:36, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> 	I suspect the suggestion is to put the entire test application
> (program, data, swap) on the external drive. And to use the same drive on
> both computers (allowing for possibly needing to rebuild the application if
> the architecture is different).
> 
> 	That would isolate disk I/O to the single drive, and any performance
> differences should then be a result of difference in processor and USB
> (unless you've got an old FireWire drive <G>) support.
> 

Yes, this is what I meant


-- 
--
Björn