Re: performance & you-know-who

Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@goop.org)
Sun, 09 May 1999 04:29:41 -0700 (PDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Alex Belits: "Re: Why does Mindcraft insist on 4* 100BaseTX?"
Previous message: Manfred Spraul: "Why does Mindcraft insist on 4* 100BaseTX?"

On 09-May-99 Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the "working set in
> memory" thing basically makes a nonsense of their claim that this is an
> "enterprise-class" setup.

Their original setup only had ~16G per OS, which is stupidly small. The ZD
benchmarks have very small working sets too - they're a very poor reflection of
real loads.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alex Belits: "Re: Why does Mindcraft insist on 4* 100BaseTX?"
Previous message: Manfred Spraul: "Why does Mindcraft insist on 4* 100BaseTX?"