Re: memory vs cpu

Subject: Re: memory vs cpu
From: Rich Sudlow ([email protected])
Date: Fri Mar 29 1996 - 09:36:30 EST

• Next message: [email protected]: "Re: mac-unix translation"
• Previous message: Frank Thomas: "mac-unix translation"
• Maybe in reply to: Jason Taylor: "memory vs cpu"
• Maybe reply: Rich Sudlow: "Re: memory vs cpu"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

While I haven't tested this on linux. I have tested this with SunOS on
a SPARC20/71. We ran out of memory well before running out of CPU power.
Having the extra memory greatly helps increase the speed of reads when
using netatalk.

Rich

>From [email protected] Thu Mar 28 20:46 EST 1996
>Resent-Message-Id: <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 16:37:27 -0600 (CST)
>From: Jason Taylor <[email protected]>
>Subject: memory vs cpu
>To: netatalk <[email protected]>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>Resent-To: [email protected]
>Resent-From: [email protected]
>Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:01:56 -0500
>Resent-Sender: [email protected]
>
>
>Which is netatalk more dependent on. I'm looking at setting up a machine
>to serve up to 100 machines connected at once under linux.
>
>----
>- Jason Taylor
>- [email protected]
>- [email protected]
>- http://www.at.vanderbilt.edu/users/jason
>---
>
>

• Next message: [email protected]: "Re: mac-unix translation"
• Previous message: Frank Thomas: "mac-unix translation"
• Maybe in reply to: Jason Taylor: "memory vs cpu"
• Maybe reply: Rich Sudlow: "Re: memory vs cpu"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:24:01 EST