From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:28:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:27:45 -0400 Received: from smtp3.libero.it ([193.70.192.53]:48552 "EHLO smtp3.libero.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:27:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3B8350D3.CDE749E1@iname.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:27:31 +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: Robert Love CC: Richard Gooch , 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> <998430817.3139.41.camel@phantasy> 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 Robert Love wrote: > > It also has nothing to do with Linux. Some motherboard's TAG RAM do not > allow for caching more than xMB. I'm just proposing to update the FAQ to help people like me that thinking to gain speed doubling the system ram have seen a severe performance drop for certain task like compiling the kernel . Answer : It has nothing to do with Linux, maybe your motherboard's TAG Ram do not allow for caching more than xMB. ciao, luca -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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