0
0b3hks001
Steven Hilgendorf said:These readings are from the P5A??
If you are referring to the results from the CacheChk, no.
If you are referring to the 512MB L2 cache, it is from P5A's manual.
Steven
Jay T. Blocksom said:.....<snip>.....
However, one last caveat before you go...
Steven Hilgendorf mentioned something which *may* be significant; namely, that
the PCI chipset used by that board might effectively limit the "cacheable
area" to 128MB. I'm about 95% certain that the specs I read a week or so ago
explicitly stated it was good up to 512MB; ...
That is what the manual said.
but I'm away from my reference
materials right now, so I cannot check on this definitively. In any event,
it's worth keeping in mind when you select memory. I still suggest initially
setting the system up with one of those 256MB sticks you already have (after
all, nothing is cheaper than a part you already have); but *do* test it
thoroughly with that CACHECHK utility I pointed you to earlier, and pay
particular attention to the results for addresses >128MB as compared to those
below 128MB. If you see a "step" fall-off in reported bandwidth/performance
at about that point, he's probably right -- and you would be well-advised to
*reduce* the installed memory in the system to 128MB.
I did the CacheChk on my laptop; and the result is as follows:
Reading from memory.
MegaByte#: --------- Memory Access Block sizes (KB)-----
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
<-- KB
0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 -- -- --
us/KB
2111: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 4 5
us/KB
2112: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4
us/KB
2113: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 4
us/KB
2114: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 5 4 4
us/KB
2115: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 5 5 5
us/KB
2116: 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 5
us/KB
2117: 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4
us/KB
This machine seems to have both L1 and L2 cache. [reading]
L1 cache is 16KB-- 965.3 MB/s 1.1 ns/byte (390%) (118%) 3.2 clks
L2 cache is 256KB-- 811.4 MB/s 1.3 ns/byte (328%) (100%) 3.8 clks
By ""step" fall-off in reported bandwidth/performance", do you mean
the equivalent of 1/2 to 5 above?
BTW... If indeed you plan to set up the system under Windows of some stripe,
I second the recommendation to use Win98SE, as was suggested earlier in the
That is my intention.
thread. For a single-user "backup" system, it will present far less of a
"load" to the hardware than the later (NT-based) versions of Windows. That
said, Win2K might also be OK, *if* the system will properly support -- i.e.,
cache -- at least 256MB of system memory; but I do *not* recommend WinXP under
any circumstances, regardless of hardware. Either way, *do* install the OS
via 98lite or 2Klite/XPlite, as appropriate, which you can find here:
<http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html>
<http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html>
And be absolutely certain that MSIE is *not* among the stuff that gets
installed.
My normal browser is Netscape and Mozilla. But I do install MSIE --
only because some web sites insists on it (e.g. Intuit; and certain
pages @ Microsoft.com).
Thanks again.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.