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 17:56:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:56:49 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.148]:64277 "EHLO granger.mail.mindspring.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:56:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [FAQ?] More ram=less performance (maximum cacheable RAM) From: Robert Love To: Richard Gooch Cc: Luca Montecchiani , Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <200108211957.f7LJvEt20846@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> In-Reply-To: <3B82B988.50DE308A@iname.com> <200108211957.f7LJvEt20846@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.12.99+cvs.2001.08.20.07.08 (Preview Release) Date: 21 Aug 2001 17:53:36 -0400 Message-Id: <998430817.3139.41.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2001-08-21 at 15:57, 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. It also has nothing to do with Linux. Some motherboard's TAG RAM do not allow for caching more than xMB. -- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net