From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:39:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:39:16 -0400 Received: from smtp3.libero.it ([193.70.192.53]:62613 "EHLO smtp3.libero.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:39:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3B82C6DF.76BCAD63@iname.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:38:55 +0200 From: Luca Montecchiani X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Gooch CC: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [FAQ?] More ram=less performance (maximum cacheable RAM) In-Reply-To: <3B82B988.50DE308A@iname.com> <200108211957.f7LJvEt20846@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard Gooch wrote: > > Er, are you sure about this? The problem isn't the size of your cache, > it's the size of your TAG RAM. That's a different beast. Yep, this is address in the "More technical information" link ;) Maybe the first description is not that accurate. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ E-mail......: Luca Montecchiani W.W.W.......: http://i.am/m.luca - http://luca.myip.org Speakfreely.: sflwl -hlwl.fourmilab.ch luca@ I.C.Q.......: 17655604 -----------------------=(Linux since 1995)=----------------------- Non esiste vento favorevole per il marinaio che non sa dove andare Seneca