Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!lynx.aba.net.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!garlic.com!news.scruz.net!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.erols.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!uunet!in3.uu.net!nntp.inet.fi!news.funet.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!news.clinet.fi!not-for-mail From: mickey@cantina.clinet.fi (Mika Ruohotie) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: dual cpu stuff... Date: 30 Aug 1996 18:05:29 +0300 Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland Lines: 53 Message-ID: <506vvp$frv@cantina.clinet.fi> References: <4vcsn4$7ql@cantina.clinet.fi> <4veq47$cc@anorak.coverform.lan> <MICHAELV.96Aug26001022@mindbender.serv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cantina.clinet.fi Michael L. VanLoon <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> wrote: > Mika Ruohotie (mickey@cantina.clinet.fi) wrote: > : cpu's are "interlaced", right? >"Interlaced"? I don't think that's a word that has ever been applied >to SMP... ;-) well, i lack the proper vocabulary being non native speaker... :p >interface determines how long each CPU can burst on the bus before it >has to get off and let the other CPU use it. Consult thanx, i feel much more enlighted now... >http://www.Intel.com/ if you want more info. will do when i have time. > : multiple cpus? i heard that the new nt4 will only hand max 40% >Well then you heard wrong. There is not one magical number that it yes, i know it's not a single number one can hand out... but what i heard was that nt4 is not performing too well with multiple cpus, that it could do better too... like that something else runs the same things better, and stuff... >than NT on a dual, I have some motherboards I'd like to sell you. Did >you know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? names of those boards? >Actually, FreeBSD's implementation is very inefficient. It's very >early alpha-quality code. This isn't to put down the people working this is something i realise too... but still i am going to find time to download the code and see it myself... i assume, someone please correct me, that 'make world' is again a good way to measure this? >sharp people in that mix. It's just that it takes time to get all the >right pieces in place for a truly well-tuned SMP kernel, and FreeBSD >is just getting started. and when they're done... *smile* >Well, of course it is... What does that have to do with dual Pentium >motherboards? my original question was do i get more performance with 1024 cache when i use two cpus, and i think i understand here it doesnt matter, meaning the difference is same than if i'd have one cpu and put the same amount of cache... right? mickey