Having far more experience than I need on multiproc systems, the answer is
"it depends". In all probability having the extra 8 threads running will
result in some processor speed increase. It will be less than double, so
1.0 < x < 2.0.
Of course if this spawns N more instances of SA, you will probably run out
of memory and thrash.
Loren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin A. McGrail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SpamAssassin Dev"
<[email protected]>; "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r594726 - in /spamassassin/trunk:
build/nightlymc/clienthosts masses/rule-qa/nightly-slave-start
Technically or theoretically, telling it you have 16 and sending it more
information than CPUs should allow the processor to handle the threading
in ways that will give a speed increase.
Unfortunately, the engineer in me is laughing (cackling, actually) and
wondering if a speed test of the command at 16 and the command at 8 using
even something simple like time would be in order.
Regards,
KAM
yep, /proc/cpuinfo says 16. Should I reduce that back down to 8?
(I haven't had much experience with HT yet)
--j.
Kevin A. McGrail writes:
Answering only for talon1, yes. It is a quad processor box with
dual-core
3GHz Xeon CPUs. Thought it may come up as 16 cores because of
HyperThreading.
regards,
KAM
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:-j8
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:-j8
>
> Are those both 8 core machines? Non-net checks run the fastest with a
> single job per core.
