On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always.
>
> Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has
> admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as
> 4.x uniprocessor
FOR CERTAIN TASKS. Your (misquoted) claim is demonstrably false in
Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always.
Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson has
admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast as
4.x uniprocessor, but you guys still continue to
claim otherwise. Clowns following clowns to the
land of nowhere.
Its virtually impossible to build a threa
At 03:20 PM 10/6/2006, Jerry Bell wrote:
I have actually made the changes to my.cnf before I ran these. I expanded
them quite a bit beyond what is in my-large.cnf. I need to pull them back
Hi,
I was just looking at this thread as its relevant to a new
DB server I am trying to put tog
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:49:04AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
> >>>Or did that change recently?
> >>
> >>It's only on certain systems, apparently.
> >
> >Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with
> >SMP? Or some script we ca
On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
Or did that change recently?
It's only on certain systems, apparently.
Is there a list of systems where it is safe to use the TSC with
SMP? Or some script we can run?
The problem of the TSC clocks getting out of sync affects pretty much
a
On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:48AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Jerry Bell wrote:
I have a Dell PE2950 with 2 dual core 3.73Ghz processors and 4G
of ram.
[...]
changed the clock to TSC
As far as I know, it is unsafe to use TSC on SMP systems.
