🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Apr7.193803.4888@nmt.edu>, swhitlat@nmt.edu (Steven Whitlatch) writes:
>>>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.

I was referring to the L2 cache, a part of the hardware, not the OS.
This will impact linux as much as DOS,windows, OS/2 ,NT etc.  I have no
idea what you mean by a cpu cache and a ram cache!  Your terminology is
unique, if not clear.  Linux users  with 486-66's who enable the L2 cache 
(256k) see about an 80% increase in speed.


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