From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 3 15:37:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389E216A4CE for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:37:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from cobra.acceleratedweb.net (cobra-gw.acceleratedweb.net [207.99.79.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9402F43D1D for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:37:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from simon@optinet.com) Received: (qmail 79975 invoked by uid 110); 3 Mar 2004 23:37:32 -0000 Received: from ool-18baaf5c.dyn.optonline.net (HELO win2kpc1) (24.186.175.92) by cobra.acceleratedweb.net with SMTP; 3 Mar 2004 23:37:32 -0000 From: "Simon" To: "hardware@freebsd.org" Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:37:48 -0500 Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.20.2661) For Windows 2000 (5.0.2195;4) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20040303233733.9402F43D1D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Subject: Xeon w/ L3 1MB cache vs Xeon w/o L3 cache X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:37:34 -0000 Has anyone done any comparison to see if extra L3 cache on Xeon CPUs provides any benefit to FreeBSD's kernel/core services and various user services' (http/email/ftp/databases) performance? I read that L3 can make things slower instead of faster in cases where L3 is not utilized and the CPU is forced to access it anyway (when L1/L2 don't hold the data it wants), because it exists. Would anyone with personal experience with Xeon CPUs with and without L3 cache comment on the impact of L3 cache. Any links to any related articles would be appreciated, as well. Thank you! -Simon