In a write through cache, the benefits of the cache are observed only on read operations and not the write operations. If your program has a large number of reads and very few writes, this policy might make sense. However, for programs which have a large number of writes, this scheme is as bad as not having a cache (performance-wise).
ayy_lmao
It seems like the synchronization policy in a write-through cache is much simpler than a write-back cache. If your program has a large number of writes, it might be more beneficial to use a write-through cache so that the synchronization overhead is lowered.
koala
@ayy_lmao, if the program has a large number of writes, every write requires writing directedly to the main memory. This can incur a high bandwidth requirement. Even if we do write through to some data, we still broadcast the write. If other caches have that data, they still have to invalidate it.
In a write through cache, the benefits of the cache are observed only on read operations and not the write operations. If your program has a large number of reads and very few writes, this policy might make sense. However, for programs which have a large number of writes, this scheme is as bad as not having a cache (performance-wise).
It seems like the synchronization policy in a write-through cache is much simpler than a write-back cache. If your program has a large number of writes, it might be more beneficial to use a write-through cache so that the synchronization overhead is lowered.
@ayy_lmao, if the program has a large number of writes, every write requires writing directedly to the main memory. This can incur a high bandwidth requirement. Even if we do write through to some data, we still broadcast the write. If other caches have that data, they still have to invalidate it.