Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!news.funet.fi!funic!fuug!demos!dvv
From: dvv@hq.demos.su (Dmitry V. Volodin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: RAM disk.
Message-ID: <1990Oct10.175412.10375@hq.demos.su>
Date: 10 Oct 90 17:54:12 GMT
References: <18560@rpp386.cactus.org> <143359@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <18574@rpp386.cactus.org> <1850@necisa.ho.necisa.oz> <1990Oct09.121447.3336@virtech.uucp>
Reply-To: dvv@hq.demos.su (Super user)
Organization: DEMOS, Moscow, USSR
Lines: 12

In article <1990Oct09.121447.3336@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>On a system that was running near 90% utilization (i.e. very little CPU 
>left) we doubled the number of NBUF entries and system performance
>*dropped* significantly.  This was probably due to the extra time spent
>searching through the buffer cache looking to see if a block was there.

And what about hash queues and other neat things? Forgot them?
You mean it - you get it.
-- 
Dmitry V. Volodin <dvv@hq.demos.su>     |
fax:    +7 095 233 5016                 |      Call me Dima (D-'ee-...)
phone:  +7 095 231 2129                 |