Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mailrus!uwmcsd1!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!ns!ddb
From: ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Cray & Amdahl (Was: missing Dhrystone 2.1)
Message-ID: <537@ns.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 88 19:18:12 GMT
References: <4232@cbmvax.UUCP> <76700035@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <5342@june.cs.washington.edu>
Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN
Lines: 17

In article <5342@june.cs.washington.edu>, pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes:
> Relevant (really?) question: Does it make more sense to buy a little
> bit of very fast memory and slow it down with virtual memory, or to
> buy a whole bunch of fast physical memory and slow it down by putting
> it farther away?  (Assume: $ is no problem).  
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
  Obviously :-) the correct solution is to buy a whole bunch of VERY
fast physical memory.  A cache system (I consider virtual memory to be
essentially a caching system) is never as fast as an entire main
memory made out of that same technology.


-- 
	-- David Dyer-Bennet
	...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
	ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
	Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300