🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnwCK1.9F9@walter.bellcore.com>, hacker@patagonia.bellcore.com (Jonathan Hacker 21420) 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.
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Jon Hacker                         |   OS/2 2.1
|> Bellcore, Red Bank NJ              |   accept no substitutes 
|> hacker@patagonia.bellcore.com      |   

	The most compute-intensive task I could find, a SPICE simulation 
running on a RAMdrive (minimal video usage, no hard disk access after 
start of simulation) runs 20% faster with 256K cache installed on my 
486DX-33 (Gosling motherboard).  For most "ordinary" tasks, the difference 
is well under ten percent (that is, unnoticeable unless you get out your 
stopwatch).  For faster processors the difference would presumable be 
greater.

-----
Greg Thoman:  The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and I am 
              solely irresponsible for them.