Re: Dual processors ?

Article View: aus.computers.linux

Article #247

Back to aus.computers.linux Previous Next

#247

From: George Bell
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 19:00

37 lines
2789 bytes

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: <3E1B242E.8040703@netscape.net>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed3.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!news-xfer.cox.net!p01!news1.east.cox.net.POSTED!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>

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: 2003-01-07 11:00:17 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed3.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!news-xfer.cox.net!p01!news1.east.cox.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3E1B242E.8040703@netscape.net>
From: George Bell <MasterofTimeADim@netscape.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010913
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,aus.ads.forsale.computers.used
Subject: Re: Dual processors ?
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 19:00:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.100.73.240
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: news1.east.cox.net 1041966016 68.100.73.240 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:00:16 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:00:16 EST
Organization: Cox Communications

Reply to Parent Message