Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!news.cais.net!rtd.com!dgy From: dgy@rtd.com (Don Yuniskis) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware Subject: Re: Does cache memory size 512K over 256K matter? Date: 24 Jul 1996 07:51:07 GMT Organization: CICDO Lines: 23 Message-ID: <4t4klb$q7m@baygull.rtd.com> References: <Pine.A32.3.93.960716180913.29739A-100000@r2d3.sbac.edu> <31F17B64.EDF@www.play-hookey.com> <4t2pe4$9o@anorak.coverform.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: seagull.rtd.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:24289 comp.os.linux.hardware:45400 In article <4t2pe4$9o@anorak.coverform.lan>, Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Ken Bigelow (kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com) wrote: >[relevent stuff deleted] >: I doubt if size will make too much difference, but speed very definitely >: will. >[The rest of the relevent stuff delted] > >I wouldn't let your partner hear that ! ;-) (grin) Seriously, I think you're getting to the point of diminishing returns when cache size gets up there. I don't *think* (OK, flame me *here* :>) that any of these OS's particularly try to load the kernel and lock the cache (etc.) or other similar *potential* optimizations (it's doubtful whether any such broad-brush optimization would be the most efficient use of the cache, anyway). It would be possible to make such refinements for a particular "kernel" in a particular set of circumstances, etc. Of course, if money is no object (email and I'll send you the address of my PO Box! :>), more is "always" better...