Kenneth Østby, le Fri 15 Dec 2006 16:12:25 +0100, a écrit :
> Try something where the working set is greater than the cache size and
> you might see some results.
We precisely want to check the effect of disabling the cache. Using a
working set that doesn't fit the cache will behave the same with
On 12/15/06, Barry deFreese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Barry deFreese, le Thu 14 Dec 2006 21:57:49 -0500, a écrit :
>
>> Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>
>>> Barry deFreese, le Thu 14 Dec 2006 02:03:10 +, a écrit :
>>>
>>>
That is just from running times on a little C
Samuel Thibault wrote:
Barry deFreese, le Thu 14 Dec 2006 21:57:49 -0500, a écrit :
Samuel Thibault wrote:
Barry deFreese, le Thu 14 Dec 2006 02:03:10 +, a écrit :
That is just from running times on a little C program that counts to
10, so it's obviously not scient
Barry deFreese, le Thu 14 Dec 2006 21:57:49 -0500, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >Barry deFreese, le Thu 14 Dec 2006 02:03:10 +, a écrit :
> >
> >>That is just from running times on a little C program that counts to
> >>10, so it's obviously not scientific.
> >>
> >
> >Try
