In a message of , Hal Roney (1:124/2113) writes:
 HR>RP> SP> RP> Loading OS2.nam is the first step, the second is 'add os2
 HR>RP>Some one said that there is a memory penalty for name space, 
 HR>RP>there is a bigger penalty on disk space, which with our 4 Gig 
 HR>Bigger?  Hmmm..
 HR>The memory calculation is:
 HR>.023 * volume size (in MB) / blocksize ... for each DOS volume
 HR>.032 * volume size / blocksize ... for each volume w/added name space
I don't see 40% there, you do not use both figures together with name space, 
only the latter instead of the former. And when I added name space, the 
percentage memory available for cache did not change. Basically, the bigger 
calculatiopn assumes worst case, ie., every file name is long and at 50% of 
maximeum length, which does not happen in practice.
 HR>I consider an increased memory requirement of approx. 40%
 HR>QUITE significant, and your quarter of a percent of drive space 
 HR>inconsequential!
 HR>Am I missing something?
Yip. The increas in memory (assuming worst case as above) would be 33% 
(approx) of the directory cache memory, which is nowhere near the total 
memory.
Regards,
        Richard.
--- Msged/Q 1.60
---------------