Oh, well that's a lot lower level than the discussion we were having. The person said that SQL Server or Windows 2000 in general would not take advantage of multiple processors until the primary had maxed out. That's all I was arguing.
Tim Heald ACP/CCFD Application Development www.schoollink.net -----Original Message----- From: Lewis Sellers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 4:26 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Performance boost with Upgrade to dual processor ?? At 04:08 AM 4/24/2002 -0400, you wrote: >See now I am not sure how this can be true. Paul Hastings sent me a >response about checking the task manager and he is right. both processors >are responding whenever I do something, and neither is maxed out. Attached >find a copy of the stats. I have been debugging c++ code essentially non-stop for the last four days and my eyes are burning out... but to the best of my recollection this is true under NT. Unless they've changed it under w2k/xp. Mind you I said "threads" not "processes". A thread is a sub-unit of an application or process. Some applications may haves hundreds of threads that come and go at every keystroke. NT, the last time I looked, by default remembers what processor a given thread last ran on it and continues to run it on that processor if at all possible whenever it reappears. You can strongly suggest which processor a given thread is to run on as well. I suspect there are very few programs that bother with such things however. --min ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
