J.D. Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 13:42 -0600 20-06-2001, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> >Rodrigo Ventura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > BTW, I have a question: Can the availability of dual-CPU boards for
> > > intel and amd processors, rather then tri- or quadra-CPU boards, be
> > > explain
"J.D. Bakker" wrote:
>
> At 13:42 -0600 20-06-2001, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> >Rodrigo Ventura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > BTW, I have a question: Can the availability of dual-CPU boards for intel
> >> and amd processors, rather then tri- or quadra-CPU boards, be explained with
> >> the fa
At 13:42 -0600 20-06-2001, Charles Cazabon wrote:
>Rodrigo Ventura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, I have a question: Can the availability of dual-CPU boards for intel
>> and amd processors, rather then tri- or quadra-CPU boards, be explained with
>> the fact that the performance degrades s
Rodrigo Ventura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BTW, I have a question: Can the availability of dual-CPU boards for intel
> and amd processors, rather then tri- or quadra-CPU boards, be explained with
> the fact that the performance degrades significantly for three or more CPUs?
> Or is there a te
> "Mike" == Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> Note that in the 2 and 4 CPU cases, the run queue length is
Mike> aprox 2x the number of CPUs and the scheduler seems to
Mike> perform reasonably well with respect to locking. In the 8
Mike> CPU case, the number of ta
I would take exception with the following statements in the FAQ:
"However, the Linux scheduler is designed to work well with a small
number of running threads. Best results are obtained when the number
of running theads equals the number of processors."
I agree that the Linux scheduler is design
6 matches
Mail list logo
