Hi,
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:48:00 +0700, Landry Breuil
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ted Unangst
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Christian Weisgerber
wrote:
I guess Landry doesn't read this list, or he could tell you how his
experiment with parallel ports building on a
Well,
Thank you for on topic answers. I've seen the -pthread parameters on
some ports' compile, but I thought is an alias for process. I will
read about them.
Damn, am I the only one who gets mad when receiving a link to
wikipedia ? It looks like a sindrome on internet.
I'm confused about multicor
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Christian Weisgerber
> wrote:
>> I guess Landry doesn't read this list, or he could tell you how his
>> experiment with parallel ports building on a 64-way sparc64 T2 went.
>> With 32 build jobs it looked like th
2011/1/7 Mihai Popescu B.S. :
> families. I don't know what SMP is about.
There's a great site since the beginning of the millenium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMP
And you should read and follow
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
HTH. HAND
Martin
* Benny Lvfgren [2011-01-07 20:45]:
> On 2011-01-07 19.54, Ted Unangst wrote:
> >>experiment with parallel ports building on a 64-way sparc64 T2 went.
> >>With 32 build jobs it looked like this:
> >> 0.8%Int 48.9%Sys 6.0%Usr 0.0%Nic 44.3%Idle
> >> around that all the time
> >My understandi
On 2011-01-07 20.45, Benny LC6fgren wrote:
Also, both tests were run with the MP kernel, so even the single-task
test would probably utilize several kernels at times.
*duh* Meant to say "...utilize several cores...", not kernels.
/B
--
internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "
On 2011-01-07 19.54, Ted Unangst wrote:
experiment with parallel ports building on a 64-way sparc64 T2 went.
With 32 build jobs it looked like this:
0.8%Int 48.9%Sys 6.0%Usr 0.0%Nic 44.3%Idle
around that all the time
My understanding is that the T2 is closer to an 8-way machine. If we
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Christian Weisgerber
wrote:
> I guess Landry doesn't read this list, or he could tell you how his
> experiment with parallel ports building on a 64-way sparc64 T2 went.
> With 32 build jobs it looked like this:
>
> 0.8%Int 48.9%Sys 6.0%Usr 0.0%Nic 44.3%Idle
>
Henning Brauer wrote:
> you're wrong. my OpenBSD SMP boxes (no, no 48 cores) do very well.
> as long as the load is userland-driven we scale fine.
I guess Landry doesn't read this list, or he could tell you how his
experiment with parallel ports building on a 64-way sparc64 T2 went.
With 32 buil
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Adam M. Dutko wrote:
> rthreads --
> http://www.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/~ungerer/rthreads/RThreads.html
The above paper has nothing to do with what's called being rthreads in OpenBSD.
A more appropriate paper from 1995 would be this one, except OpenBSD
uses a
Yes, it will use all your cores.
I don't understand your question about "blade" servers, but they are
just a different form factor of the essentially the same hardware. If
the hardware is supported SMP should work just fine.
PS: SMP is what lets you use all your cores:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
> A lot has changed since 1995.
pthreads -- https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/pthreads/
rthreads --
http://www.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/~ungerer/rthreads/RThreads.html
and etc.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Mihai Popescu B.S. wrote:
> I remember UNIX has no threads, just processes spawn by fork().
A lot has changed since 1995.
Hi folks,
I will reformulate the question. Sorry for this, but it sleeps off topic.
So, I'm interested about Intel Core 2 Duo family and i3, i5, i7
families. I don't know what SMP is about.
I remember UNIX has no threads, just processes spawn by fork().
Having this in mind, will a processor from
* Chris Cappuccio [2011-01-06 22:06]:
> But, yeah, if you want to maximize your 48 core AMD box in a data center and
> you don't see make -j48 as a practical application, OpenBSD may not be
> "there" yet for you. I don't have anything with more than 4 cores, so it was
> never really a concern
Jeremy Chase [jeremych...@gmail.com] wrote:
> This is my not-so-technical understanding.
>
> OpenBSD's current SMP status:
> - The kernel uses a single lock for shared data. My understanding is
> that this means that the kernel itself doesn't benefit from SMP as
> much as it could otherwise, but i
On 01/06/11 06:44, Mihai Popescu B.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I got the idea from FAQ that OpenBSD is not using more than one core
> from multicore processors.
please indicate where you got that from...
I can't do much about crap you "...read on the 'net...", but if there is
something in the FAQ that
This is my not-so-technical understanding.
OpenBSD's current SMP status:
- The kernel uses a single lock for shared data. My understanding is
that this means that the kernel itself doesn't benefit from SMP as
much as it could otherwise, but it does use multiple cores. (I
believe, but would like co
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:45:05 +0200
"Mihai Popescu B.S." wrote:
> I got the idea from FAQ that OpenBSD is not using more than one core
> from multicore processors.
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#SMP
As soon as you run more than just the kernel on your system (...), the
other CPUs/cores will
Hello,
I got the idea from FAQ that OpenBSD is not using more than one core
from multicore processors.
Pretending I got it right, what's the benefit to buy an Intel Core 2
Duo ? Just the bigger cache and some extra instructions?
Is there a difference in how OpenBSD handles let's say a multicore
p
20 matches
Mail list logo
