Re: Hyper-threading (was Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop)

2006-06-11 Thread Micha Feigin
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:00:55 -0500 Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Andy Smith wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> Nate Bargmann wrote: > [snip] > > This is a bit simplistic. Hyper-Threading (or

Re: Hyper-threading (was Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop)

2006-06-11 Thread Ron Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andy Smith wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> Nate Bargmann wrote: [snip] > This is a bit simplistic. Hyper-Threading (or more correctly, > simultaneous multithreading (SMT)) is almost always a win because > at

Hyper-threading (was Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop)

2006-06-10 Thread Andy Smith
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > Nate Bargmann wrote: > > I have been considering an HT based machine and would like to > > learn of any potential pitfalls. > > The h/w emulates 2 CPUs. Thus, even more than a single CPU > switching contexts, the HT-enabled CPU adds t