The cache is expensive because it is right on the processor. There is no way anyone could ask for $1000 for secondary cache. Intel build Pentium Pro processors with 256K and 512K on-board cache. It is much faster than secondary cache (and much more expensive). We looked at the options a while ago and saw the same type of price difference.


>This is a very good web address for all kind of info about all kinds of hardware:
>
>http://sysdoc.pair.com/
>
>Vlad
>
>>>>I am ordering a Compaq server that will run MS SQL Server. To upgrade from 256 to 512 pipeline burst cache costs $1000, so I'm told. Is it worth it? I'm not even sure what pipeline burst cache is.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Ross
>>>
>>>Funny, it cost me about $50. But I don't use a Compaq. I have been told that with EDO RAM pipeline cache is not as important as it was. I have not confirmed this but they seemed pretty confident. If you have a non-EDO RAM memory PC and the Compaq pipeline is < $100 (like it should be -- or you can search for a better outlet) then it is worth upgrading to.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>
>>The supplier said the cache is so expensive because of the dual processors. The real reason is probably because with government purchasing contracts the suppliers know we aren't allowed to buy from anyone else. Anyway, we ordered the cache mainly because we had a problem on another server with somebody installing cheapo RAM; I'm afraid somebody will come alomg and try to put in some $19.95 cache and crash my server, so I thought it best to fill it up now.
>>
>>Thanks for all the comments.