sram, not sdram.

Greg Lindahl lindahl at
Tue Jan 29 19:07:07 EST 2002

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:38:03PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:

> personally, 2M seems strangely small for DDR, since it's not 
> either fast or wide.

It's an L3, so that's DDR *sram*, not DDR SDRAM. Another system using
similar srams are recent Alphas. Needless to say they're expensive and
small, because they're much faster than SDRAMs. They aren't as good as
on-CPU caches, though, as their cycle times aren't that good and don't
scale up with the cpu.

Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit

More information about the Beowulf mailing list