[GRLUG] virtual box/cpu speed"

[Michael Mol]

Thanks, Ben. Actually, I think it was this chart on the same site:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Ben Rousch <brousch at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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...
>
> Probably this one, especially the Price Performance link:
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
>
> I just used it 2 days ago to help me put together a really nice 3D CAD
> station for work for about $1100.
>
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2011 12:49 AM, "Bob Kline" <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not sure what's meant by the sweet spot
>>> being at three processors. Why?
>>>
>>> A couple of observations. Processors with six
>>> CPUs have been available at popular
>>> prices for a while now. I take it if the sweet
>>> spot is three, then the incremental performance
>>> by having six is less than 2X - how much less?
>>>
>>> The taskset command sets an affinity for a
>>> CUP, which I take it is short of actually
>>> being able to assign a process to a CPU,
>>> and might be that way because one is competing
>>> with the Linux scheduler. But where physical
>>> CPUs are actually available, isn't taskset a
>>> way of taking advantage of an arbitrary number
>>> of CPUs? i.e., performance doesn't actually
>>> plateau as one adds CPUs? That would be
>>> true, if true at all, as long as there are always
>>> enough processes that need a CPU.
>>>
>>> So, again, what does a sweet spot of three
>>> CPUs mean?
>>>
>>> -- Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure, there's a speedup with quad-core. Your computer has dozens of
>>>> processes, and the ability to service more at the same time reduces
>>>> latency.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, some server services scale very well to multiple cores.
>>>> HTTPd, for example. If you use soft RAID on Linux, and have the
>>>> appropriate
>>>> kernel option enabled, checksum calculations for RAID modes 4, 5, and 6
>>>> will
>>>> be split across your cores.
>>>>
>>>> Desktop apps are catching up, too. If you use Firefox, Flash is kept as a
>>>> separate process, a scenario which benifits from more cores (see my note
>>>> on
>>>> latency near the beginning). If you use Chrome or Chromium, each _tab_ is
>>>> a
>>>> separate process, which leverages multicore for app-wide performance
>>>> improvements.
>>>>
>>>> These days, hanging at two cores when looking at making a purchase
>>>> doesn't
>>>> make sense.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, I believe the price/performance sweet spot is at three cores.
>>>> It
>>>> will probably be at four by the end of summer.
>>>> On Mar 23, 2011 10:25 PM, "west mi" <west.mi420 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Do you think there is a significant speed difference between the dual
>>>> > and
>>>> > quad core cpu's?
>>>> > I havent used anything but single and dual cores.
>>>> > I switched several years back to dual core, and did notice a
>>>> > significant
>>>> > speed up.
>>>> >
>>>> > Do you think vbox can fully utilize a quad core?
>>>> > I hesitate on going to a quad core, because I don't know if today's
>>>> software
>>>> > can
>>>> > fully utilize 4 cores.
>>>> >
>>>> > thanks,
>>>> > Darrin
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Topher <topher at codeventure.net>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, west mi wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Anyone have win7 working in vbox?
>>>> >>> And does it work good?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'll chime in.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I have a 32bit win7 install on my 32bit Arch linux laptop. The host
>>>> >> has
>>>> 2G
>>>> >> of ram and I give one to the vm. I use Photoshop in it and it works
>>>> >> just
>>>> >> fine.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I copied that vm to my 64bit arch host and that went flawlessly. Now
>>>> that
>>>> >> vm has 2G of its own, and 2 of my 4 processors. Still using photoshop,
>>>> but
>>>> >> it screams right along. It takes 5-7 seconds to go from power on to
>>>> login,
>>>> >> and maybe 12 seconds to reboot.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I really like VirtualBox.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> topher
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>>> >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>>> >> believed to be clean.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> grlug mailing list
>>>> >> grlug at grlug.org
>>>> >> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>>> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>>> > believed to be clean.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>>>> believed to be clean.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> grlug mailing list
>>>> grlug at grlug.org
>>>> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
>> grlug mailing list
>> grlug at grlug.org
>> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  Ben Rousch
>     brousch at gmail.com
>     http://ishmilok.blogspot.com/
>     http://www.grpug.org/
>     http://www.grwebdev.org/
>    http://conga-wm.org/
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>



-- 
:wq

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.