Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:57, Mike McCarty wrote:Loading OO took 24 seconds. So simply low RAM is not the complete answer. Exiting OO and then restarting it took about 8 seconds, which corresponds to what others have reported. So it looks like perhaps a disc bandwidth problem. But I don't know what the cause would be.Might just be the best an older drive can do. I'd guess that
Eh? This system is just over one year old. Is that what you mean by "older drive"?
bumping the RAM to 512M or more and switching to one of the newer drives with 8MB cache would make that box 'feel' at least 4x faster.At 20 MB/s and achieving, say 20% actual throughput, 22.3% of 256MB is 57MB, which would take at 4 MB/s 14 secs. Hmm, actually not far off (<2x). I really did do that computation based on my experience with the disc throughput achieved on other systems I've used. Hmm. But flushing to virtual should only really double the time, and 2x14 is not *very* close to 58.If you have to flush out real memory first, you have to factor in the seek time and the swap partiton may not be nearby what you are loading and it may thresh back and forth several times. If you are just re-using cache you aren't forced to do a write-back.
Yep. That's why I figured 2x with 20% actual throughput.
OTOH, with memory unloaded, it took 24 secs to load. After
exiting, it then took 8 sec to load. So it is the disc.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
