Hello Steve,

08 Dec 99 06:40, Steve McCrystal wrote to Eddy Thilleman:

ET>> 9 lazy write workers? I haven't seen mentioned that high before.

SM> I noticed that, and hadn't seen it before either, so I checked the
SM> online docs. They say that LAZY takes one of two parameters... OFF or
SM> ON.

I know, the CMDREF.INF online book is outdated.

SM> I then modified my own cache statement, changing LAZY:3 to LAZY:9
SM> and the resulting display shows there are indeed 9 lazy workers
SM> allocated.  I have no idea what difference it might make, especially
SM> given the obvious inaccuracy of the docs, but I think I'll play with
SM> it a bit! :^)

It optimizes writing to disk, so the system looses less performance with
disk-intensive applications. I don't have any more information.

  Greetings   -=Eddy=-        email: eddy.thilleman@net.hcc.nl

... Warp 4, Scotty... and close those damn Windows!
--- GoldED/2 3.0.1