Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:33:39 -0400 From: Lee Cremeans <lee@st-lcremean.tidalwave.net> To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>, lcremean@tidalwave.net Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PC Magazine 10/20/1998 Article about FreeBSD Message-ID: <19981008213339.B3259@tidalwave.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9810081826030.15278-100000@redfish>; from Marc Slemko on Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 06:26:40PM -0700 References: <19981008211843.A3259@tidalwave.net> <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9810081826030.15278-100000@redfish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 06:26:40PM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Lee Cremeans wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 04:16:46PM -0700, Reginald Perry wrote: > > > The answer seems to be that the statement about the cache is incorrect, but > > > that there seems to be a bottleneck somewhere, but 1) its unclear where, 2) > > > its unclear that its a problem. > > > > I read that article, and that statement about cache just seems to be a total > > non-sequitur. It flies right in the face of the graph they gave, and the > > It is completely consistent with the graph. The graph is clients vs. > ops with _one_ amount of RAM. They are saying that with an increasing > amount of RAM, NT gets more gains. Ah, I did not notice this. -- Lee Cremeans -- Manassas, VA, USA (WakkyMouse on DALnet and WTnet) A! JW223 YWD+++^ri P&B++ SL+++^i GDF B&M KK--i MD+++i P++ I++++ Did $++ E5/10/70/3c/73ac/95/96 H2 PonPippi Ay77 M | mailto:lcremean@tidalwave.net http://st-lcremean.tidalwave.net | Powered by FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981008213339.B3259>