From owner-freebsd-smp Tue Sep 10 01:12:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-smp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA27012 for smp-outgoing; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 01:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from groa.uct.ac.za (groa.uct.ac.za [137.158.128.7]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA27001 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 01:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by groa.uct.ac.za via sendmail with stdio id for freebsd-smp@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:11:52 +0200 (SAT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1996-Jul-21) Message-Id: From: rv@groa.uct.ac.za (Russell Vincent) Subject: Re: Intel XXpress - some SMP benchmarks To: smp@csn.net (Steve Passe) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:11:52 +0200 (SAT) Cc: peter@spinner.dialix.com, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199609092107.PAA27929@clem.systemsix.com> from "Steve Passe" at Sep 9, 96 03:07:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > we tried alot of different settings, nothing noticable. the Intel BIOS doesn't > give one alot of choices, it doesn't even let you enable/disable cache (at > least that we could find!). Note that the XXPRESS differs from many boards > in that it has seperate cache sections for each CPU. Again, I'll get into > the "less code" issue in the mailing specific to this test. Sorry, I thought I had mentioned it to you. I did eventually find an option to disable the cache completely, but it didn't help with the problems we were having. I was amazed at what a difference it makes to system performance, though - felt like I was working on a slow 386! -Russell