On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:22:07 +0200 (IST), you wrote:
>Udi Finkelstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:51:54 +0200 (IST), Evgeny Stambulchik
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > As far as performance is considered, it's not RPM that usually matters
>> > (inspite of a
Mike Londarenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me repeat here again (uff...): the role of cache is NOT only in
> > prefetching data; a more import one, especially in the
> > multitasking/heavy-load enviroments is BUFFERING of data, allowing OS
> to
> > communicate with inherintly slow de
Mike Londarenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:51:54AM +0200, Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:
>
> > As far as performance is considered, it's not RPM that usually matters
> (inspite
> > of a big hype), but the amount of cache on disk. Until recently (1-2
> years), the
>
Udi Finkelstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:51:54 +0200 (IST), Evgeny Stambulchik
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As far as performance is considered, it's not RPM that usually matters
> > (inspite of a big hype), but the amount of cache on disk. Until
> > rece
