Apologies, I re-read your post and understand what you mean.
I prefer the core count definition, but whatever it is, it should be consistent between Linux and Solaris. Andrew On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 04:37:19 UTC, Alex Harvey wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 3, 2012 9:54:49 PM UTC+11, Andrew Beresford wrote: >> >> Feature :) > > > I do understand what the code is doing but question whether that's what it > should be doing. While it's ultimately a matter of opinion, it violates > the 'principle of least surprise' for me and also my Solaris colleagues. > > At any rate, I finally managed to find a multi-core linux box I could try > this on and have confirmed that the associated linux facts behave in the > way I would have expected them to on Solaris - > > physicalprocessorcount => 1 > processor0 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processor1 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processor2 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processor3 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processor4 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processor5 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processor6 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processor7 => Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > processorcount => 8 > > This is a 4-core CPU with 8 threads. > > See the spec for the i7-2600 > http://ark.intel.com/products/52213 > > So I do think the Solaris behaviour is in error. > > Maybe we need a 'processorcorecount' fact instead? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/TIBwZzTypiIJ. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
