In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/28/2006
at 09:29 AM, Gerhard Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>S/360 didn't have page sizes since there were no pages, because there
>was no virtual storage.
Are you a betting man? Ask Bernie Galler, the Wheelers, or any old TSS
users.
>I suppose an argument could be made that larger page sizes would
>reduce the amount of storage necessary to back allocations (i.e.
>page tables). If there is little real page movement to DASD, then
>the trade-off may be worth it in reducing the cost of managing large
>working sets.
Wouldn't you require a large page table regardless of the working set
if you allocated a lot of virtual storage? A large page size could
reduced the fixed frames considerably.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
