On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Scott Long wrote:
With FreeBSD, it's a bit of a toss-up. There is no strong affinity
set or enforced between process memory and where the process is
running. Having some notion of affinity (i.e. NUMA support) would be
a good thing. Oh, and the 4+2 configurations are typical
In a message dated 2/4/05 11:29:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> D'oh. One other thing. In the benchmarks I've seen, Opterons "Play
> Nicer" with SMP because of the Hypertransport setup in some
> applications. (IE, they don't fight over memory the way Xeons do).
> Look for
Astrodog wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:38:43 -0800, Astrodog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost
as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But
how do they compare performance wise; specifically
r
Astrodog wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost
as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But
how do they compare performance wise; specifically
related to FreeBSD?
We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual
op
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:38:43 -0800, Astrodog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost
> > > as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But
> > > how do they compare performance wise; specific
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:37:08 +0100 (CET), Claus Guttesen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost
> > as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But
> > how do they compare performance wise; specifically
> > related to FreeBSD?
>
> We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a du
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
>> Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost
>> as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But
>> how do they compare performance wise; specifically
>> related to FreeBSD?
>
>We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual
>opteron @ 2 GHz, both with 4 GB RAM and running the
>amd
> Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost
> as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But
> how do they compare performance wise; specifically
> related to FreeBSD?
We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual
opteron @ 2 GHz, both with 4 GB RAM and running the
amd64-port. My impression is that the op
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:41:43 -0700, Nick Pavlica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this would depend on your application, but I have hear allot
> of good things about AMD 64.
>
> --Nick
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:04:21 -0500, Nathan Vidican <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Just
I think this would depend on your application, but I have hear allot
of good things about AMD 64.
--Nick
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:04:21 -0500, Nathan Vidican <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Just looking for general opinions and/or advice regarding use of one over
> the other.
>
> Cost w
Hey all,
Just looking for general opinions and/or advice regarding use of one over
the other.
Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But
how do they compare performance wise; specifically related to FreeBSD?
(Not subscribed to both lists I sent this to, please
11 matches
Mail list logo
