On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 12:12:56PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > that may be because of the smallish amount of RAM on this thing; > > > interleaved i was getting pretty much the same ratings. it may have to > > > do with the RAM sticks' actual ms speed rating - i have 4MB sticks @ 70 > > > ms IIRC, and some 8MB sticks @ 60 ms. > > > > us (microseconds), I guess? > > Better but not quite yet, only 3 orders of magnitude off instead of 6 ;-) > Memory access times were already counted in nanoseconds 25 years ago.
Oops ;-) > > BTW, I get 45 MB/s for the buffer-cache on my 66 MHz SDRAM. > > Looks still very low, very conservative bridge timings? This means a > cache line read (32 bytes) every 700ns or so. Even if you dirty every > cache line, doubling the traffic, this means 350ns per burst transfer. Note these are the results of `hdparm -T', not from a real memory benchmark. Real memory read performance is ca. 100 MB/s, which is reasonable for machines of that age, cfr. http://home.tvd.be/cr26864/Linux/PPC/MemSpeed.html Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
