Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:17:44 -0500 From: "Simon" <simon@optinet.com> To: "Lanny Baron" <lnb@FreeBSDsystems.COM> Cc: "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system VS one processor system Message-ID: <20040316071708.C765C43D39@mx1.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4056A871.80302@FreeBSDsystems.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sounds like a cool feature. What detects/monitors the CPUs to spot any problems and mark them offline at the next reboot? is this a feature of FreeBSD or motherboards you use? I have never heard of anything like this on Intel based servers, before. PS: then again, I never had a CPU fail after it passed DOA, maybe I haven't gone through enough CPUs, yet. -Simon On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:10:41 -0500, Lanny Baron wrote: >With our Servers (dual and quad), if a CPU becomes defective and causes >a crash, when the Server reboots, it will mark the CPU off-line and use >the other CPU. That makes it redundant. And that is, for anyone >considering their Server to be of prime importance, a hell of lot better >than waiting for a replacement of the same cpu with the same stepping. > >Lanny > >Simon wrote: > >> You keep comparing old dual CPUs to a new 2x faster single CPU >> server. Why don't you compare the latest dual CPU server to the >> latest single CPU server, and then tell us which one you think would >> be faster :-) Anyway, dual 500mhz server would be very close to single >> 1000Mhz CPU server, as long as everything else is the same. The >> idea is to take advantage of multiple CPUs using latest components, >> not just any 2 CPUs, but you keep missing this important point. >> >> PS: dual Xeon 3Ghz would be faster than single Xeon 3Ghz CPU >> and there is currently no Xeon 6Ghz CPU, so your only option is >> to have more than one CPU to make the server faster, thus SMP. >> Of course when Xeon (or whatever they name it) 6Ghz comes out, >> your dual Xeon 3Ghz server would be quite outdated and by then >> you could have dual 6Ghz server. >> >> -Simon >> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:36:17 +0300, Artem Koutchine wrote: >> >> >>>>>of processes with short run periods you will get overal >>>>>perfomance somewhere near 5000Mhz. However, when i >>>>>subsituted two 500Mhz CPUs with 1500Mhz one (even with >>>>>less 2nd level cache) on a heavy loaded web server i notice >>>>>that sites started to load faster. So, it seems as >>>>>one 3X Mhz CPU is faster that two X MHz CPUs, at least >>>>>for web server with sql base and many perl scripts. >>>>> >>>> >>>>This is true as long there is no load until the CPU cache comes >>>>into the game. It also depends on how the CPUs are connected to >>>>the main memory. >>> >>> >>>Hm.. >>>Let me make up a case. >>>Two boxes: >>>1) Dual CPU X Mhz with Y KB of cache >>>2) Sinnge CPU with 2X Mhz and 2Y KB of cache >>> >>>Which one is faster under FreeBSD? I think the >>>second one, because SMP overhead is gone. >>> >>>Artem >>>_______________________________________________ >>>freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list >>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware >>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >-- >=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= >Lanny Baron >Proud to be 100% FreeBSD >http://www.FreeBSDsystems.COM >Toll Free: 1.877.963.1900 >=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040316071708.C765C43D39>