Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- From: mockingbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Chris Bannister)
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:17:21 -0400
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 03:21:58PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
how about 16x more parallel? at least to the extent that your workload^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is able to parallelize (is that a word?). IOW, if you have lots of
No!, it is yet another Americanism. :-)
tasks running independently of each other and/or you have tasks
running code that can take advantage of parallel processing, then
those things that fit that criterion will run in parallel. And those
tasks will then complete faster because they have more cpu time than
they would get in a system with fewer cpus.
At least that's how it seems to me.
--
Chris.
======
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- From: Andrew Sackville-West
- Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- References:
- kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- From: Robert Cates
- Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- From: michael
- Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- From: Robert Cates
- Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- From: Andrew Sackville-West
- kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- Prev by Date: iceweasel tab question
- Next by Date: Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- Previous by thread: Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- Next by thread: Re: kernel 2.6.18+ SMP question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|