From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 16 10:12:47 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA17677 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA17672 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 10:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA17364; Thu, 16 May 1996 10:09:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199605161709.KAA17364@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: EDO & Memory latency To: babkin@hq.icb.chel.su (Serge A. Babkin) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:09:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199605160309.JAA29241@hq.icb.chel.su> from "Serge A. Babkin" at May 16, 96 09:09:12 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I have just tried lmbench and the numbers it gives are looking > slightly strange for me. It shows memory latency upto 500ns while > I have 60-ns EDO memory in a Pentium/75 box. Okay, its external > clock is 25MHz, this gives 40ns, one wait state, it gives another 40ns, > it gives 80ns, but why the overhead is over 400ns ? 25 * 3 = 75 Multiply access latency by 3. Then multiply the whole deal by 100/60 because you probably didn't set HZ to 100. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.