On 9/13/05, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:15:56PM -0400, michael chang wrote: > > On 9/13/05, Santanu Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > michael chang wrote: > > > > > > >Oh, I must have misread your statement. These dual-cpu nodes... what > > > >kind of CPUs do they use? How many CPUs does the OS _think_ there > > > >are? i.e. are they dual-core CPUs or something? > > > > > > > > > > > Those are all 2.8 Xenon processors; are they dual-core CPUs??. I'm > > > running SL3 and it thinks there are 4 CPUs on every node. > > > > I don't know about Xenon processors, but I do know that Intel Xeon > > processors come in a Dual-Core _flavour_ (meaning that each "CPU" may > > or may not have multiple "CPUs" in them (technically, they're "cores" > > but anyways...)). > > > > AFAIK, In a Dual Core CPU, it still has to give each core a CPU ID or > > otherwise I'm not sure how the OS is supposed to handle it. > > Dual-core cpus come with the same it set as Hyperthreaded CPU (so that > licensing that was fixed for HTT continues to work), but they add > another bit saying that they aren't actually virtual cores. An integer
If I understand you correctly, this is meaning that they say that they're real cores as opposed to virtual ones? > model of CPU counts is extremely close to worthless these days. So do we count hostnames instead? Or IPs? Or what? What happens if a PC has two hostnames and two interfaces and two ganglia instances... although that'd be solved by eliminating the need to run two ganglia instances. (I'm assuming that you'd need to run two of them now -- I don't know for sure, I forget. Sorry.) Kinda gets confusing what we want to count... -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
