Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:30:04 -0800 (PST) From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: 64 MB ECC or 128 MB non ECC ? Message-ID: <199702121030.CAA29646@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199702120816.SAA25550@ogre.devetir.qld.gov.au> (message from Stephen McKay on Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:16:45 %2B1000 (EST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Well, I'm glad I've got some cache to enable since without cache the kernel * compile takes 15 times as long. Yes, my ECC, nocache test took 97 minutes! * Yikes! The final result is that ECC is 12% slower than PARITY with no cache. * (user+sys time only). This is in agreement with those people who predicted * 10-15% main memory slow down, but, as noted above, reduces to 1% with both Thanks for verifying it. * caches enabled. 1% is no pain at all. Well that depends, if you are X-user-switch-around-between-20-windows type of guy, you can actually feel the 10% slowdown as you use the machine. I switched back to parity because I couldn't stand it. ;) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702121030.CAA29646>