Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!philapd!ssp2!pb From: pb@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Peter Brouwer) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: 386 Motherboards Message-ID: <607@ssp2.idca.tds.philips.nl> Date: 4 May 90 06:45:21 GMT Reply-To: pb@idca.tds.philips.nl (Peter Brouwer) Organization: Philips Information Systems, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Lines: 26 Summary: Expires: References:<15966@cbnews.ATT.COM> <332@hub.cs.jmu.edu> <883@sixhub.UUCP> <292@zds-ux.UUCP> <898@sixhub.UUCP> Sender: Followup-To: Organisation: Philips Information Systems, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Disclamer: This is mine opinion alone. Keywords: In article mat@zeus.opt-sci.arizona.edu (Mat Watson) writes: >I've gotten some responses to my posting, and >I STAND CORRECTED! Thanks for setting me straight. >I wrote: >> Since *nix swaps entire jobs ( which I assume are larger than the >> cache ), doesn't that screw up the hit rate? >Not True. I'm told that Unix seldom swaps out entire jobs, >so the cache actually ends up working pretty well on a single >user system. > In a paging system pages are loaded on demand and if memory gets thight pages are swapped. If a page is swapped out or in it is copied through a few buffers in memory in the kernel code. Like from the memory from the disk controller into a kernel buffer and from that to the location in memory where it will be used. Does this not trash the cache? -- Peter Brouwer, # Philips Information Systems, NET : pb@idca.tds.philips.nl # Department SSP-P9000 Building V2, UUCP : ....!mcsun!philapd!pb # P.O.Box 245, 7300AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. PHONE:ext [+31] [0]55 432523, #