• Subject: RE: What About Price vs. Performance?
  • From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:20:56 -0500
  • Importance: Normal

I've definitely found this to be the case.  The AS/400 is better at caching
its objects than any machine I know.  I believe this has to do with the
single-level memory store coupled with the fact that everything is an
object, so that the AS/400 simply caches EVERYTHING.  If it's used a lot,
it's available.

I have in fact noticed this specifically with the web server.  If I stop all
access for a little while, and especially if I do some other, unrelated
high-load task, then the next access to the web has a much higher latency
than subsequent hits.  This indicates dynamic caching based on use, at least
to me.  Then again, it's been a decade or two since I wrote an operating
system, so what do I know?  The most sophisticated caching I did was an LRU
(Least Recently Used) table.  <grin>


> The post that showed that the more hits, the better response time, goes
> back to the S/38. IBM would point out that the more you use something
> the quicker it's retrieved.  That's the point of the memory management
> optimizer.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].