Re: Caught by cache?

Article View: demon.tech.pc

Article #68878

#68878

From: John Naismith
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:00

18 lines
1252 bytes

In article: <317bc4ca.802017@news.demon.co.uk>  hemal@popath.demon.co.uk (Hemal 
Popat) writes:

> I've seen figures of PB cache ~ 15% quicker than no cache and async cache ~
> 7% quicker than no cache.

Try 30-40% slower without cache - that would be nearer.

And to the rest of you that participated in this thread - no I *still* haven't 
re-opened the case :)

I'll get there eventually - honest...

-- 
---------------------------
john@naismith.demon.co.uk
---------------------------

Technical Details

Message-ID: <372392052wnr@naismith.demon.co.uk>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References:

<415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk> <y8Ry$BAgfhexEw5b@jasper.demon.co.uk> <830102878snz@phaedrus.demon.co.uk> <830132235.25952@pstancer.demon.co.uk> <317bc4ca.802017@news.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1036bc,7858595a79b6a65d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1036bc,public
From: John Naismith <John@naismith.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Caught by cache?
Date: 1996/04/23
Message-ID: <372392052wnr@naismith.demon.co.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 151025798
x-nntp-posting-host: naismith.demon.co.uk
references: <415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk> <y8Ry$BAgfhexEw5b@jasper.demon.co.uk> <830102878snz@phaedrus.demon.co.uk> <830132235.25952@pstancer.demon.co.uk> <317bc4ca.802017@news.demon.co.uk>
x-broken-date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:15:00 GMT0BST1
x-mail2news-path: disperse.demon.co.uk!post.demon.co.uk!naismith.demon.co.uk
organization: None
reply-to: John@naismith.demon.co.uk
newsgroups: demon.tech.pc

Reply to Parent Message