From owner-freebsd-hardware Fri Sep 11 16:59:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA29996 for freebsd-hardware-outgoing; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:59:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA29991 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:59:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spork@super-g.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by super-g.inch.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA29063; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:58:08 -0400 (EDT) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: Manar Hussain cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "Cacheable memory"?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980912001114.00afd720@stingray.ivision.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Manar Hussain wrote: > re: PII vs K6-2 > > We were makign the exact same decisions here and settled on the k6-2 as > more cost effective but lower likely top performance. So even though you can get more cache with the AMD, it's slower at the same clocking as a PII? > You can get boards with 2Mb of cache > (http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/motherboards/california_graphics/photon100 > hc-1mb-atx.html) The problem I have with this is "who is california graphics??"... Where were they a year ago and where will they be 3 years from now... > It means that any RAM above that level can not be 2nd level cached - it's > to do with how the cache works. Does anyone know the performance impact this has on a typical web/mail/news server? > For something that is expected to be pushed in terms of hardware I'd say it > was very important to try and get all the RAM 2nd level cacheable. A 1Mb > board will *normally* be able to cache up to 256Mb of RAM. Does anyone know what determines how much RAM is cacheable? I've seen different amounts with the same size cache. Is it a chipset issue? We have a few machines that would really like about 512M of RAM, is it a waste if it's not cacheable? Thanks, Charles > manar > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message