Does anyone know if the existence of a backside cache (L2/L3?) on a Mac running FMServer 5.5 (OS9 or X) make for a large performance difference? I have been considering a G4 800MHz w/o backside. I cant access the fmbench site search to see if there is a comparison of the 733 with and without. Filemaker cust service says no it uses the system RAM much more but some other benchmark sites (barefeats) seem to think that it makes a big difference in database applications. If anyone has fmbench exports they can email me i would appreciate it.

Thanks

Hi!

I dont have any benchmark materiel, but I have never seen a Motorola Apple G4 chip without backside cache. That's interesting. The size of L2 and L3 cache on a G4 is part of its superiority over any other processor (besides the Itanium2, which is thousands more for just the processor). Personally, I would not consider a processor without some sort of backside cache in a workstation, much less a server... my opinion

Ken

I wasn't aware of G4's without backside cache either. Cache becomes more important as the speed of the processors exceeds the speed of the memory bus. We did some tests with the 7500/8500 product line and L2 cache using MacBench. Going from none to 256K to 1Meg of L2 Cache on a 230MHz processor with a 45-50 MHz memory bus made a very significant difference. Usually about 50% improvement (I'd have to dig out the actual results). Having said all that, if your new machine is much faster than your old, it's just a matter of the $ vs. performance for a machine with more cache.

-bd

I think you are splitting hairs here.

First, on G4s till now, L2 cache is in the backside cache, an L3 is not. As well, it is not an option not to get one, there a size option.

The L3 cache helps performce when doing the same task over again. Which is what serving is. So go for the biggest one.

IMHO -- the fastest HD system will help more, than powerful number crunching. FM server is not calculating much; it is looking for data on HD and spitting them to network.

Get the fastest network adapter with excellent throughput and fastest SCSI system.

The current G4/800 has only the onchip 256K but no L3 cache. If FMServer doesnt use it then the computer is alot cheaper.

falkaholic: I agree except the hair being split is, in this case, worth CDN$1600.00 and if its not used the money might be better spent on SCSI etc.

Liveoak: Do you remember if those tests were with the server version of the software?