From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun Dec 29 13:05:34 1996
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA12143
          for questions-outgoing; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (cisco-ts15-line9.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.192])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA12135
          for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.8.2/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00253; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:05:24 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:05:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug White <dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu>
Reply-To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu
To: ttsai@pobox.com
cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 512K L2 cache problems
In-Reply-To: <199612272052.OAA31840@edison.ebicom.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.94.961229130346.242A-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Tim Tsai wrote:

>   I usually get a kernel panic (page fault, following by disk sync ...
> giving up ... reboot) with 512K of cache enabled.  Generally it will
> boot the OS OK (but not always) but compiling the kernel will generate
> the panic everytime.
> 
>   I am sending all the cache back for now.  All the machines have 64M to
> 128M of 60ns EDO RAM.  Should I bother with the additional 256K of
> cache?

It certainly can't hurt you, but if it won't work it won't work.

BTW -- don't forget to rebuild the kernel with MAXMEM=131072 on your 128mb
machines so that FreeBSD will see the upper 64MB.

Doug White                              | University of Oregon  
Internet:  dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu    | Residence Networking Assistant
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite    | Computer Science Major