On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 03:21:58PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> how about 16x more parallel? at least to the extent that your workload
> is able to parallelize (is that a word?). IOW, if you have lots of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No!, it is yet another Americanism. :-)
> tasks running independently of each other and/or you have tasks
> running code that can take advantage of parallel processing, then
> those things that fit that criterion will run in parallel. And those
> tasks will then complete faster because they have more cpu time than
> they would get in a system with fewer cpus.
>
> At least that's how it seems to me.
--
Chris.
======
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
