> On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Patrick Cole wrote:
>
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I'm currently running a Pentium machine (Linux 2.0.32) with 128M of RAM, but
> > >only 256k of cache memory. I've seen documentation saying that I'll need at
> > >least 512k of cache.
> > >
> > >Well, my system seems to work.. what sort of problems can I expect? Will it
> > >be anything more serious than a performance hit due to cache misses?
> > >
> > >The system seems to run fine (and yes, I've used well over 64M at once).
> >
> > Running 64M on an intel chipset with only 256k greatly decreases the
> > performance of the ram, nothing more.
I think you are talking about the tag ram. Most MB nowaday, can only
cache the first 64MB, or are delivered with an upgradable tagram.
(My ASUS T2P4 for example). If you upgrade the tagram, than the board can
cache 512MB of ram, and then you don't have performance problems.
>
> What is a good amount of cache to have for different amounts of
> RAM on a Linux box then?
>
> 64M == ? cache?
> 96M == ? cache?
> 128M == ? cache?
As I said above: The first question how much memory can be cached. If not
all memory can be cached, than your performance will suffer greatly.
My person experience on the other hand is, that the size of the cache
doesn't make a big difference.
Andreas
>
>
>
> Mike A. Harris | Homepage: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
> Computer Consultant |
> System/Network Administrator - John Howard Society, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
> URL: Silicon Graphics http://www.sgi.com
>