Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:58:08 -0400 (EDT) From: spork <spork@super-g.com> To: Manar Hussain <manar@ivision.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "Cacheable memory"?? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.00.9809111954030.21861-100000@super-g.inch.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980912001114.00afd720@stingray.ivision.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Manar Hussain wrote: > re: PII vs K6-2 > > We were makign the exact same decisions here and settled on the k6-2 as > more cost effective but lower likely top performance. So even though you can get more cache with the AMD, it's slower at the same clocking as a PII? > You can get boards with 2Mb of cache > (http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/motherboards/california_graphics/photon100 > hc-1mb-atx.html) The problem I have with this is "who is california graphics??"... Where were they a year ago and where will they be 3 years from now... > It means that any RAM above that level can not be 2nd level cached - it's > to do with how the cache works. Does anyone know the performance impact this has on a typical web/mail/news server? > For something that is expected to be pushed in terms of hardware I'd say it > was very important to try and get all the RAM 2nd level cacheable. A 1Mb > board will *normally* be able to cache up to 256Mb of RAM. Does anyone know what determines how much RAM is cacheable? I've seen different amounts with the same size cache. Is it a chipset issue? We have a few machines that would really like about 512M of RAM, is it a waste if it's not cacheable? Thanks, Charles > manar > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.00.9809111954030.21861-100000>