> I'd be curious to see what kind of performance you can eek out of it with
> only 256k of cache.  The one thing which has stopped me from going out and
> buying one of the Netra X1s or the Blade 100s is the small cache.  I can't
> convince myself that it's worth it.
>
> Has anyone run one of these smaller ultrasparc IIs with the smaller cache,
> and has anyone been able to say "it's okay" or "it's a slug" [or,
> hopefully, "it's fast, but it'll be faster once NetBSD runs on it ;-]?

I've run an Ultra 10 with a 333Mhz UltraSPARC IIi with 256k L2. Compared to
an Ultra 2 with a 300Mhz 2Mb L2 CPU, there is a noticable difference but
it's still a damn fast machine. :)