[rescue] quad 486

[Brian]

I never owned one of these personally, but I guess that explains why they
are so friggin big.


	Brian

The path to a desireable destination
is often more difficult than the path to stay where you are.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Andrew Weiss wrote:

> That's why the well designed multi-cpu machines have separate caches for
> each processor... even the old 386/486 era boxen.  I think they did it by
> having each cpu + cache on daughterboards.
>
> Andrew
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian" <bri at sonicboom.org>
> To: "The Rescue List" <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [rescue] quad 486
>
>
> > Because then there is battling over cache access, and at a lower rate than
> > the processor.  Suppose the 2 procs need something different from the
> > cache, or suppose sometjing was there but now isn't because it was
> > displaced by a request of the other processor.  I knew someone with a dual
> > proc p166, and the way he described it to me, was that a lot of apps
> > actually performed worse.
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > The path to a desireable destination
> > is often more difficult than the path to stay where you are.
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:39:04AM -0800, Brian wrote:
> > > > I would be hesitant to use smp on a box with procs whose L2 cache is
> not on
> > > > chip..
> > >
> > > Why do you say that?
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> > _______________________________________________
> > rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue