more RAM + faster disk -> slower box?!

Mark Blackman mark at blackmans.org
Thu Nov 29 14:52:48 GMT 2001


You're right, I didn't pay attention to the actual chipset. I still
favour the cache problem myself, since the disks aren't busy. Anyway,
I'm sure Ian will report back.

We had a lot of problems with Intel 440BXes at work I seem to recall, but it
was simple failure rather than being overworked.

- Mark

> On Thursday 29 November 2001  2:19 pm, Mark Blackman wrote:
> > http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/cache/charCacheability-c.html
> >
> > Seems to be connected with the Intel 430HX chipset.
> > This seems far more likely.
> 
> His dmesg output suggests a Celeron on a 440BX (oooo... FSB tweaking! Yum!) 
> chipset, and I haven't heard of similar problems with that config in this 
> manner. This article would suggest that if you had 64Mb RAM and then upgraded
>  
> above that, THEN you could expect a performce drop (which would suggest the 
> majority of us are running our machines with the performance drop already 
> there), unless you were using 430HX in which case the barrier is 512Mb. I 
> still think it's a disk issue. Maybe. :-)
> 
> -- 
> Paul Robinson
> 
> ------ FreeBSD UK Users' Group  -  Mailing List ------
> http://listserver.uk.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-users




More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list