Re: Dual processors ?

Article View: aus.computers.linux

Article #243

Back to aus.computers.linux Previous Next

#243

From: Greg Thiedecke
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:32

42 lines
2909 bytes

can we all drop the aus.ads.forsale.used out of an offtopic discussion

"George Bell" <MasterofTimeADim@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3E1B242E.8040703@netscape.net...
> Floyd Davidson wrote:
>
> > George Bell <MasterofTimeADim@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>warr wrote:
> >>
> >>>if a program is written for single CPU only, even though your OS is
> >>>coordinating the 2 cpus and this program may be running on 2 cpus, but
> >>>they are not running concurrently. they are still sequential
> >>>processing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>How do you know this is true for Linux?  I don't believe that the load
> >>balancing algorithm implemented for SMP by the Linux kernel will make
> >>such bad decisions when allocating CPU time to the processes.
> >>
> >
> > As the figures I just posted in a separate article shows, the
> > SMP kernel is actually 2% faster (on this particular motherboard)
> > than a non-SMP kernel.  That is for sequential processing of the
> > make job!  With parallel processing running up to 4 processes at
> > once, the non-SMP job took 1.7 times as long.
> >
> >
> >>That just tells me that Windows sucks, which I already knew.
> >>
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> >
>
> Bravo!  :-)  Thanks for performing the tests and sharing the results
> with us. Especially helpful for those of us who, like me, don't have a
> dualie to compare to.
>
> George
>

Technical Details

Message-ID: <nfSS9.163$Yy4.8654@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!nnrp1.ozemail.com.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail

References:

<pan.2003.01.03.13.58.10.249319@iprimus.com.au> <av578p$c8s17$1@ID-99293.news.dfncis.de> <av5qtf$tcf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <fbf82913.0301040421.1a35bdfa@posting.google.com> <3E178C63.7040901@netscape.net> <3E1797D0.4050907@netscape.net> <fbf82913.0301052133.36e2aee9@posting.google.com> <3E19F971.5080005@netscape.net> <87vg11x9hn.fld@barrow.com> <3E1B242E.8040703@netscape.net>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 114381,acfea8e5e9ff6f15
X-Google-Attributes: gid114381,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b32,acfea8e5e9ff6f15
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public
X-Google-Thread: 102983,acfea8e5e9ff6f15
X-Google-Attributes: gid102983,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-08 01:42:08 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!nnrp1.ozemail.com.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Greg Thiedecke" <softwist@ozemail.com.au>
Newsgroups: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,aus.ads.forsale.computers.used
References: <pan.2003.01.03.13.58.10.249319@iprimus.com.au> <av578p$c8s17$1@ID-99293.news.dfncis.de> <av5qtf$tcf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <fbf82913.0301040421.1a35bdfa@posting.google.com> <3E178C63.7040901@netscape.net> <3E1797D0.4050907@netscape.net> <fbf82913.0301052133.36e2aee9@posting.google.com> <3E19F971.5080005@netscape.net> <87vg11x9hn.fld@barrow.com> <3E1B242E.8040703@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: Dual processors ?
Lines: 44
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <nfSS9.163$Yy4.8654@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:32:37 +1000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.84.187.16
X-Trace: nnrp1.ozemail.com.au 1042018387 210.84.187.16 (Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:33:07 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:33:07 EST

Reply to Parent Message