home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!kdenning
- From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
- Subject: Re: ISA Limitation?
- Message-ID: <Bx986z.B1v@portal.hq.videocart.com>
- Organization: VideOcart Inc.
- References: <1992Oct25.203602.2387@ksmith.uucp> <BwqMxn.26p@portal.hq.videocart.com> <913@felix.Sublink.Org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:49:46 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <913@felix.Sublink.Org> eb@felix.Sublink.Org (Enrico Badella) writes:
- >In article <BwqMxn.26p@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
- >>
- >>MAKE CERTAIN that your secondary cache scheme is set up to go beyond 16MB.
- >
- >How do you verify?
-
- Check the manual. That's the only reliable way I have found. Your other
- choice is to put in 20MB of RAM and see if the system seems to be slower
- than it was with 16MB. If so you probably have this problem.
-
- >>If you have 64KB of cache on a '486 this is almost certain to be a problem.
- >>If you have 256KB cache it is probably not.
- >
- >What are the reasons for such behavour?
-
- Most direct-mapped schemes aren't set up to work beyond 16MB. Most
- set-associative schemes requires 256KB of cache to work reasonably-well, and
- thus the cache controllers aren't designed to do set-associative mapping
- with less cache RAM.
-
- Its more of a design issue than anything else; I can't think of a technical
- reason why it couldn't be made to work even with the smaller cache, but in
- my experience most 64kb cache boards aren't set up that way.
-
- --
- Karl Denninger Inet: kdenning@hq.videocart.com
- VideOcart Inc. Voice: (312) 987-5022
-