Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:04:41 -0500 From: "Simon" <simon@optinet.com> To: "Artem Koutchine" <matrix@itlegion.ru>, "Erich Dollansky" <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> Cc: "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system VS one processor system Message-ID: <20040316070405.5857243D3F@mx1.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <026901c40b22$2c557c50$0c00a8c0@artem>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You keep comparing old dual CPUs to a new 2x faster single CPU server. Why don't you compare the latest dual CPU server to the latest single CPU server, and then tell us which one you think would be faster :-) Anyway, dual 500mhz server would be very close to single 1000Mhz CPU server, as long as everything else is the same. The idea is to take advantage of multiple CPUs using latest components, not just any 2 CPUs, but you keep missing this important point. PS: dual Xeon 3Ghz would be faster than single Xeon 3Ghz CPU and there is currently no Xeon 6Ghz CPU, so your only option is to have more than one CPU to make the server faster, thus SMP. Of course when Xeon (or whatever they name it) 6Ghz comes out, your dual Xeon 3Ghz server would be quite outdated and by then you could have dual 6Ghz server. -Simon On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:36:17 +0300, Artem Koutchine wrote: >> > of processes with short run periods you will get overal >> > perfomance somewhere near 5000Mhz. However, when i >> > subsituted two 500Mhz CPUs with 1500Mhz one (even with >> > less 2nd level cache) on a heavy loaded web server i notice >> > that sites started to load faster. So, it seems as >> > one 3X Mhz CPU is faster that two X MHz CPUs, at least >> > for web server with sql base and many perl scripts. >> > >> This is true as long there is no load until the CPU cache comes >> into the game. It also depends on how the CPUs are connected to >> the main memory. > > >Hm.. >Let me make up a case. > Two boxes: >1) Dual CPU X Mhz with Y KB of cache >2) Sinnge CPU with 2X Mhz and 2Y KB of cache > >Which one is faster under FreeBSD? I think the >second one, because SMP overhead is gone. > >Artem >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040316070405.5857243D3F>