Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!rogerj From: rogerj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Roger Jagoda) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Will the Next sell? (max memory size) Keywords: 64MB RAM in NeXT cubes Message-ID: <9374@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Date: 30 Nov 89 18:35:16 GMT References: <4283@helios.ee.lbl.gov> <21301@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <21736@brunix.UUCP> <21795@brunix.UUCP> Reply-To: rogerj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Roger Jagoda) Followup-To: FQOJ@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Distribution: na Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 48 In article dennis@yang.cpac.washington.edu (Dennis Gentry) writes: > > I'd be all for a 25+MIP machine with >32MB of physical memory..... > >Just to make sure that we're all clear on this point: You *can >install 64Mb of RAM in a NeXT today* using 4Mb DRAMs, which are >either available from NeXT or which will soon be available from >NeXT. You can also find them in the back of MacWeek. Lets all be sure we're right on this one. As a test, our group bought 20 4 MB SIMM boards from the Chip Merchant. They worked fine in a MACIIci (030, 25Mhz) but the Cube froze up solid and refused to boot. We tried all the possibilities: All banks with 4MB boards The first half with 4s and the second with 1s The first half with 1s and the second with 4s Both of the above with varying 4 and 8MB sections Nothing revealing could be found in /usr/adm/messages. These guys were 80ns, page mode (nibble mode not avail.) So I have to report one failure under the above circs. So has anyone else tried it and gotten it to work? Is there any point to it? I mean do you notice Mathm. running better or less swapping? I mean with an 030, and even with Mach's memory handler (which is upposed to be on the better side as far as UNIX kernels go) how much can we push this Cube??? > >It's not clear that 64Mb is really a reasonable amount of RAM >for a 68030. Even though 64Mb costs twice as much as 32Mb, the >performance gain you'll achieve by going from 32Mb to 64Mb will >almost certainly be less impressive than the performance gain >from 16 to 32Mb. > Ah, my point here exactly. Uhm, why is this. Is this a kernel limitation or a Cube/hardware limitation? Again, can a 030 UNIX box handle anything more than 16-32MB at 25Mhz? Food for though would be "well, not with one processor but with two..." So when are those EMBIC chips going to be ready???? Roger Jagoda Cornell University FQOJ@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU