Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!fortune!wall From: wall@fortune.UUCP (Jim Wall) Newsgroups: net.arch Subject: Re: Cache revisited Message-ID: <5459@fortune.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 12:03:31 EDT Article-I.D.: fortune.5459 Posted: Tue Aug 13 12:03:31 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:09:41 EDT References: <5374@fortune.UUCP> <901@loral.UUCP> <2583@sun.uucp> Reply-To: wall@fortune.UUCP (Jim wall) Distribution: net Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 17 Someone in replying tomy original article on cache said that the hit rate on the internal cache in the 68020 is about 50%. Anyone care to agree with that? Anyone care to tell me what reasonable application or operating system spends 50% of its time in loops that are smaller that 256 bytes?? The numbers that are claimed for the hit rates on caches are nothing short of incredible. I think the CPU manufacturers are the instigators, and nobody bothers to question them. But, hey, I could be wrong. It's happened before. So let's hear it. Anyone who claims high cache hit rates on normal applications, let's hear the justification for them. -Jim Wall ...amd!fortune!wall