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.uwa.edu.au!disco.iinet.net.au!wa.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!psgrain!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!news1.erols.com!uunet!in2.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: 6 Sep 1996 19:55:11 +0300 Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland Lines: 75 Message-ID: <50pl1f$lcv@cantina.clinet.fi> References: <4vcsn4$7ql@cantina.clinet.fi> <MICHAELV.96Aug26001022@mindbender.serv.net> <506vvp$frv@cantina.clinet.fi> <MICHAELV.96Sep2020921@mindbender.serv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cantina.clinet.fi Michael L. VanLoon <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> wrote: >mickey@cantina.clinet.fi (Mika Ruohotie) writes: > heard was that nt4 is not performing too well with multiple cpus, that >Well, that is a marketing fallacy perpetuated by some companies that really? even if i'd tell i heard it from someone "inside" intel? notice here that i do not mean i actually did... but what _if_ i did? >Whether you like Microsoft or not, NT4 is probably the best, or at *shrug* i ran it on dual pentium for a while... wasnt _too_ inpressed... >put FreeBSD at the top of this list and really mean it. i'm sure we will see that day... =) >like Digital Unix, Solaris (ugh), Irix, etc., on really heavy-duty >Iron, not to mention special-purpose OS' like Cray's. Naturally, NT yes, i know... specially the "slow" and "narrow" (pci) bus is the one slowing down the machine in the really high end servers... too bad, since there are reasons why i'd rather would run freebsd on server... ofcourse, yet at the moment i am not in a position where i'd need such speed, but i could think i'm there in several months... ofcourse, i can always use multiple machine for the tasks... (i am talking about heavy duty web server where i could think the pci bus would become a problem) > and when they're done... *smile* >especially if you're setting expectations. well... the expectations i have for freebsd have been so far less than what it's capable of... and i cant really say the same about nt or 95... >There's a really big jump in performance with a Unix-like box going >from 256K to 512K cache. There's a much smaller jump going from 512K >to 1024K, unless you are really pushing the machine. But there should ok, thanx... i learned myself that 256->512 is remarkable change... >still be a slight improvement, since cache runs faster than DRAM, and >doesn't have to block on refresh cycles (plus can still feed the >processor when a bus-master device is using the bus). yes, i know >would probably be "just right". I'm curious who makes a board that >uses 1MB of cache, though? I thought the Triton stuff only went to so far, most what i've heard/read about has been 768kb, was probably supermicro made board... >And, also yes, dual Pentium Pros would kick-butt here. For several absolutely, this is where i am planning to go when i need such a power... >The dual Pentium Pro has the L2 cache on the "processor-side" of the is there boards that would use L3 cache? advantages? >I'm not going to describe all the differences. You can find out by >yourself. There's all the information you need on >http://www.Intel.com/. the information there is not too well available... but i've found some... like, still i dont know anything about TX chipset... and stuff... mickey