On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:43:28PM +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 17:49 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > > > The application we tested on was a kernel based network system that did > > > a lot of I/O (with network cards and FS) and a huge memory hog. > > > We never really bothered to find out why HT performed so bad (we already > > > decided to dump the Xeons and use the AMD Opteron instead), though the > > > cache trashing does sound reasonable. > > > > What was the test? HT compared to what? two physical CPUs? single > > physical CPU? > > IBM e345 Dual Xeon with two 2.8/533 Xeons. > SuperMicro single socket Xeon with one 2.4/533 Xeon.
Thanks for the specs, but that doesn't answer my question. Unless you mean that the first configuraton (e345) was 20% slower than the second?! Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
