The CDT and copywaza lab

[before]

Ok, transformed them to hyperlinks Btw, they're from the original post of this thread, nothing new supposedly, just that little detail to turn the attention to.

Really? Humm not sure... details make the difference. Not sure they really make it (empirically), but we all have to take care of them. Rigourously.

TBH, folder or not folder, X partition or Y partition, etc... I don't think that could make a difference between these processes (CDT, CW, etc, different names for an equivalent aim); but if you wanna discriminate them, you have to take care of them.

So, thank you for showing us these inconsistencies.

I'm afraid, actually, we don't know what is precisly the whole CDT method. Additionnally, what's CW?

Stupid question?... not really Each of us seems to have his own CW method making useless the comparison between CW and CDT...

We all need now an official CDT method and an official CW method. Continuing without this requisite will never draw an end. Simple as that.

[mrlobber]

Really? Humm not sure... details make the difference. Not sure they really make it (empirically), but we all have to take care of them. Rigourously.

Absolutely agree. This difference might be something, and might not - but it again proves the fact that nobody has confirmed we have been testing the "correct CDT", and it hasn't been clearly denied either except for a couple of "completely wrong" remarks without explaining what exactly has been done wrong

We all need now an official CDT method and an official CW method.

As to CW methods... although Hipro has posted his CW method with clear details how to do it, it's also true we most of the time are doing our own methods (and I have a personal CW which on my C2D 3600 Mhz setup is working 1second better in 32M than hipro's). However, as long as people can't get CDT working better than their copywaza, it doesn't matter which CW they're using because we are looking for the difference between the two methods to analyze in our "laboratory"... and if there isn't any, there is nothing to analyze

About the inconsistencies I have pointed out, I've been in process testing both the "written CDT" (original / elmor / KTE) as well as the "pictured CDT"... While testing, I have observed different things going around with both the amount of available memory and system cache as well as the ratio between them. I have done also various copy numbers of that 1.85Mb big file (from 1x to 5x) and found so far that the more you copy /replace the file around according to CDT rules the more available memory / system cache rise... and the more closer they get.

However, atm I've not finalized the testing yet and thus can't provide exact numbers... and regardless of numbers I haven't seen the revolution in my 32M times so far, so any hint from the CDT experts would be appreciated anyway (especially about that "written CDT" vs "pictured CDT" thing).

I'll try to post more details this evening.

Also, massman was posting previously in this thread he was able to get some 6secs better time with CDT, but also mentioned he has not finished his testing... I wonder, when would he post his final results?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=48
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=60