🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnwCK1.9F9@walter.bellcore.com> hacker@patagonia.bellcore.com writes:
>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.
>


	Thanks for your attempt to help, but myself and the previous
	poster are refering to the external cpu cache, not the ram cache.

	Linux doesn't use a ram cache anyway.  It uses dynamic buffers.

	Steve Whitlatch
	swhitlat@prism.nmt.edu