Nicole Harrington wrote:
--- Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nicole Harrington
wri
tes:
--- Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
Meyer writes:
Generally, more processors means things will
go
faster until you run
--- Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nicole Harrington
> wri
> tes:
> > --- Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In message
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
> > > Meyer writes:
> > > > Generally, more processors means things will
> go
> > > faster
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicole Harrington
wri
tes:
> --- Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
> > Meyer writes:
> > > Generally, more processors means things will go
> > faster until you run
> > > out of threads. However, if there's some share
--- Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
> Meyer writes:
> > Generally, more processors means things will go
> faster until you run
> > out of threads. However, if there's some shared
> resource that is the
> > bottleneck for your load, and the resource do
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Cy Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Meyer writes:
> > Generally, more processors means things will go faster until you run
> > out of threads. However, if there's some shared resource that is the
> > bottleneck for your load, and the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Meyer writes:
> Generally, more processors means things will go faster until you run
> out of threads. However, if there's some shared resource that is the
> bottleneck for your load, and the resource doesn't support
> simultaneous access by all the cores, more
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 07:22:26PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Andrew Hammond wrote:
> >On 2/7/07, Nicole Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >> I have been building/using servers that were dual CPU
> >>AMD Opteron systems for some time. (usually 246
> >>Opteron cpu's)
> >>
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> Nicole Harrington wrote:
> > Using FreeBSD, what is really the difference, besides
> >power and ability to shove in more memory, between
> >having the two seperate CPUS's?
> Dual core or Quad Core CPUs performance are far better co
Nicole Harrington wrote:
Hello all,
I have been building/using servers that were dual CPU
AMD Opteron systems for some time. (usually 246
Opteron cpu's)
Now of course the world is shifting to Dual Core.
Using FreeBSD, what is really the difference, besides
power and ability to shove in more
Andrew Hammond wrote:
On 2/7/07, Nicole Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all,
I have been building/using servers that were dual CPU
AMD Opteron systems for some time. (usually 246
Opteron cpu's)
Now of course the world is shifting to Dual Core.
Using FreeBSD, what is really the
On 2/7/07, Nicole Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all,
I have been building/using servers that were dual CPU
AMD Opteron systems for some time. (usually 246
Opteron cpu's)
Now of course the world is shifting to Dual Core.
Using FreeBSD, what is really the difference, besides
pow
Hello all,
I have been building/using servers that were dual CPU
AMD Opteron systems for some time. (usually 246
Opteron cpu's)
Now of course the world is shifting to Dual Core.
Using FreeBSD, what is really the difference, besides
power and ability to shove in more memory, between
having
12 matches
Mail list logo
