Path: gmdzi!unido!mcvax!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!vail!rcd
From: r...@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: caches and smart boards arguing
Summary: go for the caches instead of smart boards
Message-ID: <15875@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Date: 23 Jun 89 23:25:18 GMT
References: <663@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> <3625@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <847@anise.acc.com>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp, Boulder, CO
Lines: 19
Posted: Sat Jun 24 00:25:18 1989

In article <8...@anise.acc.com>, l...@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes:
[stuff about recent discussion of memory on smart boards arguing with
caches on 386]

> (4) Intelligent cards can help CPU-bound programs a lot, by moving the
>     protocol-related CPU cycles out to the front-end processor.

In theory, yes.  In practice, they don't seem to help all that much.

Unless the interface to a smart board is very well designed, with at least
a nod to what UNIX wants, it's not likely to do a lot of good.  A good
cache, on the other hand, is a dramatic improvement for a fast 386 for most
problems...you're likely to get better network performance out of a cached
machine with a dumb net board than an uncached machine with a smart one
(because you increase the CPU speed by more than the added load).  When
you're not using the net, obviously the cache wins.
-- 
Dick Dunn      UUCP: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd           (303)449-2870
   ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.