HT on a Pentium 4 usually runs mass-check 1.5% slower. On a Xeon it
usually runs 8% faster. A quick check of 53000 messages on talon1 shows
that 16 jobs (using HT) is indeed 8% faster than 8 jobs (avoiding HT).
Daryl
Justin Mason wrote:
yeah, I'm hoping someone's already tried that with a similarly-specced
box and can save me the bother ;)
--j.
Kevin A. McGrail writes:
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.
