🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2nvotu$8r6@panix2.panix.com>, rwebb@panix.com (Russell Webb) writes:
>In article <1994Apr6.041427.7079@nmt.edu>,
>Steven Whitlatch <swhitlat@gray.nmt.edu> wrote:
>
>[If a cache were added:]
>
>>	I'm interested in what kind of benefit I'd be getting 
>>	in X under Linux and XFree.  
>
>There are other cacheless Zeos Linux users out there wondering the
>same thing.  (I am one.)  Wouldn't the improvement be less under
>Linux than DOS, though?
>

The cache will affect all OS's.  By way of example, a 486 with 32MB RAM
was incorrectly configured to cache only the first 16MB.  We saw
benchmark deterioration on the order of 2 depending on whether the
application was using the cached or uncached RAM.  (this was under OS/2
2.11).  That is, when the OS happened to load the application into the
cached RAM it ran almost twice as fast as when loaded into the uncached
RAM.  These randomly varying results of our benchmark were very
puzzling until we figured out what was really going on.  In any case,
the conclusion is clear, the cache is very important.


-- 
Jon Hacker                         |   OS/2 2.1
Bellcore, Red Bank NJ              |   accept no substitutes 
hacker@patagonia.bellcore.com      |