ow...@netptc.net put forth on 10/22/2010 8:15 PM:
Actually Amdahl's Law IS a law of diminishing returns but is intended
to be applied to hardware, not software. The usual application is to
compute the degree to which adding another processor increases the
processing power of the system
Ron Johnson put forth on 10/22/2010 8:48 PM:
Bah, humbug.
Instead of a quad-core at lower GHz, I just got my wife a dual-core at
higher speed.
Not to mention the fact that for desktop use 2 higher clocked cores will
yield faster application performance (think of the single threaded Flash
Original Message
From: s...@hardwarefreak.com
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32?
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:13:06 -0500
ow...@netptc.net put forth on 10/22/2010 8:15 PM:
Actually Amdahl's Law IS a law of diminishing returns
On 10/22/2010 12:53 AM, Arthur Machlas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Andrew Reidrei...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
But I'm curious if anyone on the list knows the rationale for
distributing kernels with this set to 32. Is that just a
reasonable number that's never been updated? Or is
On 2010-10-22 03:15 +0200, Andrew Reid wrote:
I recently deployed some new many-core servers at work, with
48 cores each (4x 12 core AMD 6174s), and ran into an issue where
the stock Debian kernel is compiled with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32,
meaning it will only use the first 32 cores that it sees.
Ron Johnson put forth on 10/22/2010 2:00 AM:
On 10/22/2010 12:53 AM, Arthur Machlas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Andrew Reidrei...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
But I'm curious if anyone on the list knows the rationale for
distributing kernels with this set to 32. Is that just a
Original Message
From: ron.l.john...@cox.net
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32?
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:00:45 -0500
On 10/22/2010 12:53 AM, Arthur Machlas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Andrew
Reidrei
On 10/22/2010 10:34 AM, ow...@netptc.net wrote:
Original Message
From: ron.l.john...@cox.net
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32?
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:00:45 -0500
Correct. The amount of effort needed for cross-CPU
Original Message
From: ron.l.john...@cox.net
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32?
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:44:39 -0500
On 10/22/2010 10:34 AM, ow...@netptc.net wrote:
Original Message
From: ron.l.john...@cox.net
On Friday 22 October 2010 11:34:19 ow...@netptc.net wrote:
In fact IIRC the additional overhead follows the square of the number
of CPUs. I seem to recall this was called Amdahl's Law after Gene
Amdahl of IBM (and later his own company)
Either that's not it, or there's more than one
ow...@netptc.net put forth on 10/22/2010 5:18 PM:
Ron et al
See the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
Larry
Amdahl's law doesn't apply to capacity systems, only capability systems.
Capacity systems are limited almost exclusively by memory,
IPC/coherence, and I/O
On Friday 22 October 2010 03:22:02 Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2010-10-22 03:15 +0200, Andrew Reid wrote:
I recently deployed some new many-core servers at work, with
48 cores each (4x 12 core AMD 6174s), and ran into an issue where
the stock Debian kernel is compiled with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32,
Original Message
From: rei...@bellatlantic.net
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32?
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:05:49 -0400
On Friday 22 October 2010 11:34:19 ow...@netptc.net wrote:
In fact IIRC the additional overhead
On 10/22/2010 07:08 PM, Andrew Reid wrote:
On Friday 22 October 2010 03:22:02 Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2010-10-22 03:15 +0200, Andrew Reid wrote:
I recently deployed some new many-core servers at work, with
48 cores each (4x 12 core AMD 6174s), and ran into an issue where
the stock Debian
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Andrew Reid rei...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
But I'm curious if anyone on the list knows the rationale for
distributing kernels with this set to 32. Is that just a
reasonable number that's never been updated? Or is there some
complication that arises after 32
15 matches
Mail list logo
