Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    35

    1mb vs 512kb cache, much difference?

    I have one server with 2.66Ghz P4 processor 1024kb cache, IDE hd. I've just bought a new server to replace the old one; a 2.8Ghz P4 with 512kb cache / SATA hd.

    Is there any reason to be concerned at the smaller cache? Will it make much of a difference, bearing in mind that the server will be doing regular images conversions and a few small video conversions, daily?

    Thanks for any help.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New York USA
    Posts
    402
    Bigger is better, i mean thats like comparing ram

    1024
    or
    512

    The bigger 1024 one woul be better, but i guess you will find out in the long run.

    Best Regards,

    Shaun

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,139
    You probably wont notice much if any difference in the real world.

    From what I understand, the L2 cache is a place where the CPU stores frequently used resources, and the larger it is the less it has to go to the RAM to get it (simple explination). Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,446
    That is correct and the difference will likely be nothing that you will ever see.
    FiberPeer.Com | | REAL DDoS Protection | Cloud Hosting | VPS | Dedicated Servers | High Bandwidth Hosting | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
    FiberPeer DDoS Mitigation | ethProxy Upgraded! | 14-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
    Visit us @ www.fiberpeer.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    York, UK
    Posts
    371
    It depends... For very CPU/Memory bound tasks (such as complex SQL queries where all the data is currently in RAM/disc-cache, number-crunching over large data-sets, simulations/games, ...) it can make a significant difference.

    Though in a web hosting environment I would doubt that, overall, the difference will be massively noticable. If it is a case of deciding to pay more for the bigger cache, you might be better to instead consider putting the money into getting more RAM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    1,622
    I'd have stuck with the older machine...

    It will depend a lot on what you'd consider a "significant" difference...
    For each image conversion or video conversions you might save a fraction of a second or maybe even up to a few seconds... but does that little of a difference really matter? That might depend on what you mean by "regular" as the more frequent and often it's doing those types of tasks... the more it would make sence to have a larger cache.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    35
    Lightwave, I'd have stuck with the older machine if it hadn't been for the fact it was migrated to the dreaded Webhostplus. I was wondering if there was a 'significant' difference more than anything. If it's down fractions of a second then it doesn't concern me so much. And by regular, I mean every few minutes or so.

    Thanks all

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •