From owner-freebsd-hardware  Wed Feb 12 02:31:04 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA20857
          for hardware-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA20852
          for <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id EAA08307; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:30:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: from wck-ca7-04.ix.netcom.com(204.31.231.36) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma008305; Wed Feb 12 04:30:15 1997
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.9) id CAA29646; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199702121030.CAA29646@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au
CC: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au
In-reply-to: <199702120816.SAA25550@ogre.devetir.qld.gov.au> (message from Stephen McKay on Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:16:45 +1000 (EST))
Subject: Re: 64 MB ECC or 128 MB non ECC ?
From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * 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