<p>Benchmark results vs part price, based on a website Ben Rousch linked to on IRC a month or two ago. I couldn't (and can't) easily grep my logs right now, or I'd cite...</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 24, 2011 12:49 AM, "Bob Kline" <<a href="mailto:bob.kline@gmail.com">bob.kline@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> Not sure what's meant by the sweet spot<br>
> being at three processors. Why?<br>> <br>> A couple of observations. Processors with six<br>> CPUs have been available at popular<br>> prices for a while now. I take it if the sweet<br>> spot is three, then the incremental performance<br>
> by having six is less than 2X - how much less?<br>> <br>> The taskset command sets an affinity for a<br>> CUP, which I take it is short of actually<br>> being able to assign a process to a CPU,<br>> and might be that way because one is competing<br>
> with the Linux scheduler. But where physical<br>> CPUs are actually available, isn't taskset a<br>> way of taking advantage of an arbitrary number<br>> of CPUs? i.e., performance doesn't actually<br>
> plateau as one adds CPUs? That would be<br>> true, if true at all, as long as there are always<br>> enough processes that need a CPU.<br>> <br>> So, again, what does a sweet spot of three<br>> CPUs mean?<br>
> <br>> -- Bob<br>> <br>> <br>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Michael Mol <<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>>> Sure, there's a speedup with quad-core. Your computer has dozens of<br>
>> processes, and the ability to service more at the same time reduces latency.<br>>><br>>> Additionally, some server services scale very well to multiple cores.<br>>> HTTPd, for example. If you use soft RAID on Linux, and have the appropriate<br>
>> kernel option enabled, checksum calculations for RAID modes 4, 5, and 6 will<br>>> be split across your cores.<br>>><br>>> Desktop apps are catching up, too. If you use Firefox, Flash is kept as a<br>
>> separate process, a scenario which benifits from more cores (see my note on<br>>> latency near the beginning). If you use Chrome or Chromium, each _tab_ is a<br>>> separate process, which leverages multicore for app-wide performance<br>
>> improvements.<br>>><br>>> These days, hanging at two cores when looking at making a purchase doesn't<br>>> make sense.<br>>><br>>> Right now, I believe the price/performance sweet spot is at three cores. It<br>
>> will probably be at four by the end of summer.<br>>> On Mar 23, 2011 10:25 PM, "west mi" <<a href="mailto:west.mi420@gmail.com">west.mi420@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> > Do you think there is a significant speed difference between the dual and<br>
>> > quad core cpu's?<br>>> > I havent used anything but single and dual cores.<br>>> > I switched several years back to dual core, and did notice a significant<br>>> > speed up.<br>
>> ><br>>> > Do you think vbox can fully utilize a quad core?<br>>> > I hesitate on going to a quad core, because I don't know if today's<br>>> software<br>>> > can<br>>> > fully utilize 4 cores.<br>
>> ><br>>> > thanks,<br>>> > Darrin<br>>> ><br>>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Topher <<a href="mailto:topher@codeventure.net">topher@codeventure.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>>> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, west mi wrote:<br>>> >><br>>> >> Anyone have win7 working in vbox?<br>>> >>> And does it work good?<br>>> >>><br>
>> >><br>>> >> I'll chime in.<br>>> >><br>>> >> I have a 32bit win7 install on my 32bit Arch linux laptop. The host has<br>>> 2G<br>>> >> of ram and I give one to the vm. I use Photoshop in it and it works just<br>
>> >> fine.<br>>> >><br>>> >> I copied that vm to my 64bit arch host and that went flawlessly. Now<br>>> that<br>>> >> vm has 2G of its own, and 2 of my 4 processors. Still using photoshop,<br>
>> but<br>>> >> it screams right along. It takes 5-7 seconds to go from power on to<br>>> login,<br>>> >> and maybe 12 seconds to reboot.<br>>> >><br>>> >> I really like VirtualBox.<br>
>> >><br>>> >> topher<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> --<br>>> >> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
>> >> believed to be clean.<br>>> >><br>>> >> _______________________________________________<br>>> >> grlug mailing list<br>>> >> <a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
>> >> <a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>>> >><br>>> ><br>>> > --<br>>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
>> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>> > believed to be clean.<br>>> ><br>>><br>>> --<br>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/">http://www.mailscanner.info/</a>>, and is<br>
>> believed to be clean.<br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> grlug mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>>> <a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
>><br>> <br>> -- <br>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>> believed to be clean.<br>> <br></div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.