On Aug 24 2007, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> I found this recent article (by a Microsoft guy!) in Dr. Dobbs to be
> interesting:
>
>http://www.ddj.com/hpc-high-performance-computing/201202924
(...)
> * Comparing O(1) and O(K)
Ugh! This article just shows that the Microsoft people should take
Just FYI - a nice one is
$ taskset 01 yes | sha1sum
versus
$ taskset 03 yes | sha1sum
to see a dualcore's different affinities in a load monitor.
(Regards to Bob Prolux)
m°
On 08/26/07 11:26:27PM +0200, Michael wrote:
>
> Just to avoid confusion...cpuset seems to be the kernel thing, and taskset is
> the related userspace tool ?
>
Yes taskset is the userland tool for setting CPU affinity but it's only
for setting CPU affinity while cpusets also restrict the nodes
Just to avoid confusion...cpuset seems to be the kernel thing, and taskset is
the related userspace tool ?
> What is an 'optical imbalance'?
If one pane of the load-monitor is green and the other is black ;)
It looks like it's not 'balanced' but you really clarified that issue now.
--
To UNS
On 08/25/07 01:22:50PM +0200, Michael wrote:
>
> Thanks Lennart, thanks Jim, for the good points.
> I think i can accept the matter of facts ;)
>
> It's generally a great fun to read your postings.
> Just let me say thx here for sharing your insight.
> That should apply to all those real freaks
Thanks Lennart, thanks Jim, for the good points.
I think i can accept the matter of facts ;)
It's generally a great fun to read your postings.
Just let me say thx here for sharing your insight.
That should apply to all those real freaks on this list.
kr micha
ps. I imagine quadcore (and beyo
* Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-24 09:27:34 -0400]:
> In fact if you have three processes to run and in total they need 90% of
> one cpu, then it is better to run it all on one cpu and let the other
> one go to power saving mode rather than running half the load on each.
> That doe
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 01:04:16AM +0200, Michael wrote:
> Do you know if the kernel tries to balance load really equally ?
> For my 2core AMD64 it seems cpu0 has to be about >70% before cpu1 gets
> involved.
> Another idea is, i always see cpu0 is the most busy one. But wouldn't
> switching the
On 08/24/07 01:04:16AM +0200, Michael wrote:
> Lennart,
>
> > probably don't have any good reason to. The scheduler does a great job
>
> Do you know if the kernel tries to balance load really equally ?
> For my 2core AMD64 it seems cpu0 has to be about >70% before cpu1 gets
> involved.
> Anoth
I would like to know that also, my cpu0 is always under some load, and
the cpu1 usually just sit tight... when I am not running some
simulation.
2007/8/23, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Lennart,
>
> > probably don't have any good reason to. The scheduler does a great job
>
> Do you know if the k
Lennart,
> probably don't have any good reason to. The scheduler does a great job
Do you know if the kernel tries to balance load really equally ?
For my 2core AMD64 it seems cpu0 has to be about >70% before cpu1 gets
involved.
Another idea is, i always see cpu0 is the most busy one. But would
* Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-23 11:45:11 -0400]:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 05:08:49PM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
> > I have an AMD64 dual-core cpu running debian-amd64. Now I have heard, that
> > it
> > might be possible, to run applications on different cpus. One app is
>
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 05:08:49PM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
> I have an AMD64 dual-core cpu running debian-amd64. Now I have heard, that it
> might be possible, to run applications on different cpus. One app is running
> on cpu1 , the other on cpu2 at the same time. Or just using only one of
Hello list,
I have an AMD64 dual-core cpu running debian-amd64. Now I have heard, that it
might be possible, to run applications on different cpus. One app is running
on cpu1 , the other on cpu2 at the same time. Or just using only one of the
two cpu-cores. Is that right ???
(I know, that in M
14 matches
Mail list logo
