Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mimsy!aplcen!osiris!phil
From: phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64 Vs 32
Message-ID: <1071@osiris.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Apr-87 12:35:56 EST
Article-I.D.: osiris.1071
Posted: Tue Apr 21 12:35:56 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Apr-87 05:28:58 EST
References: <3810013@nucsrl.UUCP> <28200016@ccvaxa> <1316@ames.UUCP>
Organization: Johns Hopkins Hospital
Lines: 23
Keywords: address size, physical memory limits, RAM disks
Summary: linear scaling?

In article <1316@ames.UUCP>, lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>   If a 1 MIP system a few years ago needed 16MBytes of virtual
> and 4 MBytes of physical memory (my own figures), a 100MIP system needs about
> 2GB of virtual and 512 MBytes of physical memory....

That's assuming that MIPS and physical/virtual memory scale linearly.  I
have my doubts about this.

While MIPS (for the sake of argument, let's use the "wise man's definition",
or "Meaningless Index of Processor Speed") and virtual memory size may have
a more or less linear interrelationship, I've noticed more of a logarithmic
relationship between virtual and real memory.

Am I the only person out here who doesn't agree?

-- 
                              ...!decvax!decuac -
Phil Kos                                          \
The Johns Hopkins Hospital    ...!seismo!mimsy  - -> !aplcen!osiris!phil
Baltimore, MD                                     /
                              ...!allegra!mimsy -

"People say I'm lazy, dreaming my life away..."  - J. Lennon