Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!hunter.premier.net!news1.erols.com!newsmaster@erols.com From: Ken Bigelow <kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware Subject: Re: Does cache memory size 512K over 256K matter? Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:35:48 -0700 Organization: Erols Internet Services Lines: 24 Message-ID: <31F17B64.EDF@www.play-hookey.com> References: <Pine.A32.3.93.960716180913.29739A-100000@r2d3.sbac.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kenjb05.play-hookey.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:24084 comp.os.linux.hardware:45092 Dan Cromer wrote: > > Hello, > Our organization ordered a machine with 512K 2nd-level cache. Our > supplier, S.A.G. Electronics, substituted the Tyan motherboard we ordered > with an Intel Triton II motherboard, with 256K cache. Will the smaller > 2nd-level cache have a significant impact when running FreeBSD or Linux > with 64MB RAM? > > Dan I doubt if size will make too much difference, but speed very definitely will. I hope you're running no more than 15 ns chips (12 would be better with high-speed motherboards). I've had major problems with 20 ns cache chips until I slowed down the cache read cycle. FreeBSD seems to be more efficient than DOS or Windoze, so it tries to access the cache before the data is necessarily stable. :-( -- Ken Are you interested in | byte-sized education | http://www.play-hookey.com over the Internet? |