> You people with older motherboards and lotsa RAM needs to do a little > investigating before complaining about how long anything takes to do. > The amount of cache RAM can affect performance in a very big way. My VIA
Not only that, but complaining about how long it takes to boot (how often do you boot anyway? The last time I rebooted was about 6 months ago, and my box rebooted itself because of a power glitch, and I decided to upgrade to 8.1 then too). And complaining about how long programs take to start up isn't really a good measure of performance. > MVP3 motherboard has 1024K of cache, which is sufficient only for 256 Mb > of RAM. Benchmarks running 512 Mb are roughly 40% worse than when That can be an issue. Newer systems (athlon) have the cache on the chip anyway - mine's an Athlon with 128k or so of on-chip cache and I don't know if there is any level-2 cache although I suspect there is. It's an ASUS A7V 133 board, with 256 megs of RAM. >From what I've read, linux does slow down if there isn't sufficient cache, because parts of the memory are left uncached - and I'm not sure why this is - I figure the kernel should be loaded towards the bottom of memory (in a cached region, naturally) and not somewhere where the RAM isn't cached. Thus, the system need only suffer slowdowns when your resident set of processes are larger than the amount of RAM that can be cached. However, it doesn't appear this is the case -- unless more recent kernels have made this a moot point. Secondly, I think the issue is related to not having enough cache tag bits rather than the amount of cache.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
