Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Non-cached motherboards
Message-ID: <454@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 90 20:49:09 GMT
References: <4761@helios.ee.lbl.gov>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 20

In article <4761@helios.ee.lbl.gov> thomas@ux3.lbl.gov (Mark Thomas) writes:

| 	Also, some discussion concerning cached systems and multitasking
| might be interesting.  Saul Lubkin in the Computer Shopper has been
| professing that most cached systems don't work optimally under an
| intensive multitasking environment.  Anyone have any comments? or info?

  If running four users on 2.5MB under UNIX counts as intensive, there's
no problem. The results are the same with or without the cache, just a
LOT slower without. I have run Xenix and V.3 on AMI, Dell, and Compaq
without problems.

  I believe that there are some disk controllers which have problems
with a cached M.B. under some conditions, but I've never seen it with
WD, Adaptek, or Perstor.
-- 
	bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
davidsen@sixhub.uucp		...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon