...usd: 161 Cold: hi: 62, btch: 15 usd: 14 Active:105996 inactive:1367 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:1085 slab:1782 mapped:858 pagetables:387 bounce:0 DMA free:1800kB min:96kB...pages of HIGHMEM 2061 reserved pages 16280 pages shared 0 pages swap cached 0 pages dirty 0 pages writeback 858 pages mapped 1782 pages slab 387 pages pagetables Out of memory: kill process 6683 (kill) ...

... kB Cached: 401068 kB SwapCached: 168 kB Active: 980580 kB Inactive: 318308 kB SwapTotal: 2570320 kB SwapFree: 2567948 kB Dirty: 1364 kB Writeback: 0 kB AnonPages: 691812 kB Mapped: 40528 kB Slab: 460080 kB SReclaimable: 435760 kB SUnreclaim: 24320 kB PageTables: 10768 kB NFS_Unstable:...

... HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 3350660 kB LowFree: 3142864 kB SwapTotal: 23101376 kB SwapFree: 23101376 kB Dirty: 228 kB Writeback: 0 kB Mapped: 11700 kB Slab: 17896 kB CommitLimit: 24776704 kB Committed_AS: 19272 kB PageTables: 960 kB VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB VmallocUsed: ...

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 07:06:02 -0700, Davide <Davide@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: OK. I understand the mechanisms of writeback and so. I understand the advantages of EWF, but on the partition where I have the MDF file I cannot enable EWF because all the database changes will be lost after restart. IIRC, you said in your initial message that you're using CF - CompactFlash? ...

"Davide" <Davide@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:31B132FA-C379-4B5B-B881-EE6523D2782D@microsoft.com... OK. I understand the mechanisms of writeback and so. I understand the advantages of EWF, but on the partition where I have the MDF file I cannot enable EWF because all the database changes will be lost after restart. I appreciate the suggestion to use NTFS ...

dma writes to memory thru writeback cache to ease on chip complexity issues, stall of write back may in worst case propergate to regset being written flag, which may propergate to regset unavail for reg pass stall, which may lead to full stal if all regset stall.?? cheers Me thinks KR561C part number /version change in order, with historic lax documents A and B. implementation ...

... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to make Forth work effectively. A hardware stack would run much faster than DRAM and not mess with the cache. thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back, sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the writeback cache to 256 elements.

... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to make Forth work effectively. A hardware stack would run much faster than DRAM and not mess with the cache. thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back, sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the writeback cache to 256 elements.

... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to make Forth work effectively. A hardware stack would run much faster than DRAM and not mess with the cache. thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back, sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the writeback cache to 256 elements.

... what I have seen reported, it does not take much stack to make Forth work effectively. A hardware stack would run much faster than DRAM and not mess with the cache. thinking about it, active rows has the problems of write back, sheduling and this complicates the design. i say it would be more efficient to spend the chip area on expanding the writeback cache to 256 elements.