Testing has confirmed much larger prefetch values work well.
Con
---
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:20, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Testing has confirmed much larger prefetch values work well.
Bah.. Sorry take this one instead. Just make sure that no matter how little
ram we have prefetch is enabled.
Con
---
On 10/22/05, Con Kolivas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:20, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Testing has confirmed much larger prefetch values work well.
>
> Bah.. Sorry take this one instead. Just make sure that no matter how little
> ram we have prefetch is enabled.
Con,
would you be so kind to post more information about the test you've done ?
--
Paolo
Pleas click here: http://heracleum.altervista.org/top/site.php?vote=488
to support http://technologynews.altervista.org
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:41, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> On 10/22/05, Con Kolivas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:20, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Testing has confirmed much larger prefetch values work well.
> >
> > Bah.. Sorry take this one instead. Just make sure that no matter how
> > little ram we have prefetch is enabled.
>
> Con,
> would you be so kind to post more information about the test you've done ?
My concern was to not cause a detriment to performance in any noticeable way.
The prefetch sizes were tested on a number of machines with different speed
hard drive / ram size combinations to ensure none of the default values ever
caused any significant I/O wait, or that heavy memory requiring compiles took
any longer to complete as these constantly need new ram allocations and I
wanted to ensure that prefetching into ram didn't slow down those
allocations. Furthermore, the time taken to actually prefetch the application
is now more than 5 times faster because of the larger default prefetch
values.
Cheers,
Con