On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:22:01 -0400
Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The description does say dual processors, however the picture of the
motherboard clearly has two processor slots. The have several motherboards
in this series, which probably accounts for the discrepancy. Unless
Recently disclosed Intel Core 2 bugs:
http://www.kerneltrap.org/node/8472
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
I asked for a quote on a server yesterday from our hardware provider, and the
sales guy told me about a great new deal. For the same price as a Dual Core,
2 Ghz Xeon processor, I can get a Quad Core 1.6ghz Xeon processor. My first
impression was four must be better than two, but is it really?
server. it's licensed per 2 CPUs. A 4
core is the same as a single or dual core in their licensing. I'm finding
with that, a dual quad core is cheaper then adding ram + 1 cpu to 2 systems
with 3 single core cpus between them.
Those 1.6GHz CPUs might use less power generate less heat.
The real limit
server.
I've been looking at a VMware ESX server. it's licensed per 2 CPUs. A 4
core is the same as a single or dual core in their licensing. I'm finding
with that, a dual quad core is cheaper then adding ram + 1 cpu to 2 systems
with 3 single core cpus between them.
Those 1.6GHz CPUs might
with
that, a dual quad core is cheaper then adding ram + 1 cpu to 2 systems with 3
single core cpus between them.
Those 1.6GHz CPUs might use less power generate less heat.
might being the key operative word here. Check the specs.
The real limit on your application will likely be I/O. Bus
Warren Luebkeman wrote:
I asked for a quote on a server yesterday from our hardware provider, and the
sales guy told me about a great new deal. For the same price as a Dual Core,
2 Ghz Xeon processor, I can get a Quad Core 1.6ghz Xeon processor. My first
impression was four must be better
Warren,
These days the Linux kernel scales fairly linearly for eight processors,
so the real questions are:
o on the eight-core system, how often would you keep the fifth to eighth
core busy?
o on the four-core system, how often would you have processes in the run
queue looking for a processors
as a single or dual core in their licensing. I'm finding with
that, a dual quad core is cheaper then adding ram + 1 cpu to 2 systems with 3
single core cpus between them.
Those 1.6GHz CPUs might use less power generate less heat.
might being the key operative word here. Check the specs
Slashdot just mentioned this review of various processors:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/pricevperf/index.x?pg=1
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:53:05 -0400
Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked for a quote on a server yesterday from our hardware provider, and the
sales guy told me about a great new deal. For the same price as a Dual Core,
2 Ghz Xeon processor, I can get a Quad Core 1.6ghz Xeon
Quoting Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Most of the previous posts have pretty well answered most everything.
As Maddog points out, Linux scales well up to 8 CPUs, but much work is
being done with 32, 64, and 128 by IBM, HP, and SGI. In your case,
it's not so much that you are going to
On 6/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Most of the previous posts have pretty well answered most everything.
As Maddog points out, Linux scales well up to 8 CPUs, but much work is
being done with 32, 64, and 128 by IBM, HP, and SGI.
On Friday 29 June 2007 1:27 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:53:05 -0400
Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked for a quote on a server yesterday from our hardware provider, and
the sales guy told me about a great new deal. For the same price as a
Dual Core, 2
. it's licensed per 2 CPUs. A
4 core is the same as a single or dual core in their licensing. I'm
finding with that, a dual quad core is cheaper then adding ram + 1 cpu
to 2 systems with 3 single core cpus between them.
Those 1.6GHz CPUs might use less power generate less heat.
might
in mind
the memory bandwidth.
I've been looking at a VMware ESX server. it's licensed per 2 CPUs.
A 4 core is the same as a single or dual core in their licensing. I'm
finding with that, a dual quad core is cheaper then adding ram + 1 cpu
to 2 systems with 3 single core cpus
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:19:23 -0400
Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to the salesman the Quad Core has more cache, so I guess I'm good
there.
You can always look up the size either on Intel or the Tech Report
article has some listed.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:50:43 -0400
Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the motherboard I'm looking at:
http://www.intel.com/design/servers/boards/s5000PSL/index.htm
Unless I read it wrong, this board takes a single multi-core CPU.
--
Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boston
On Jun 29, 2007, at 13:27, Jerry Feldman wrote:
The 1.6Ghz vs. 2.0 Ghz is
minuscule, but make sure you don't get less cache.
Yeah, what Jerry said - and make sure you're not losing memory bus
speed either. I've been shocked how important memory speed is to
tasks like this. I'd probably
19 matches
Mail list logo
