Multiprocessor system VS one processor system

[Lanny Baron]

With our Servers (dual and quad), if a CPU becomes defective and causes 
a crash, when the Server reboots, it will mark the CPU off-line and use 
the other CPU.  That makes it redundant. And that is, for anyone 
considering their Server to be of prime importance, a hell of lot better 
than waiting for a replacement of the same cpu with the same stepping.

Lanny

Simon wrote:

> You keep comparing old dual CPUs to a new 2x faster single CPU
> server. Why don't you compare the latest dual CPU server to the
> latest single CPU server, and then tell us which one you think would
> be faster :-) Anyway, dual 500mhz server would be very close to single
> 1000Mhz CPU server, as long as everything else is the same. The
> idea is to take advantage of multiple CPUs using latest components,
> not just any 2 CPUs, but you keep missing this important point.
> 
> PS: dual Xeon 3Ghz would be faster than single Xeon 3Ghz CPU
> and there is currently no Xeon 6Ghz CPU, so your only option is
> to have more than one CPU to make the server faster, thus SMP.
> Of course when Xeon (or whatever they name it) 6Ghz comes out,
> your dual Xeon 3Ghz server would be quite outdated and by then
> you could have dual 6Ghz server.
> 
> -Simon
> 
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:36:17 +0300, Artem Koutchine wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>of processes with short run periods you will get overal
>>>>perfomance somewhere near 5000Mhz. However, when i 
>>>>subsituted two 500Mhz CPUs with 1500Mhz one (even with
>>>>less 2nd level cache) on a heavy loaded web server i notice
>>>>that sites started to load faster. So, it seems as 
>>>>one 3X Mhz  CPU is faster that two X MHz CPUs, at least
>>>>for web server with sql base and many perl scripts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is true as long there is no load until the CPU cache comes 
>>>into the game. It also depends on how the CPUs are connected to 
>>>the main memory.
>>
>>
>>Hm..
>>Let me make up  a case.
>>Two boxes:
>>1) Dual CPU  X Mhz with Y KB of cache
>>2) Sinnge CPU with 2X Mhz and 2Y KB of cache
>>
>>Which one is faster under FreeBSD? I think the
>>second one, because SMP overhead is gone.
>>
>>Artem
>>_______________________________________________
>>freebsd-hardware at freebsd.org mailing list
>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hardware at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Lanny Baron
Proud to be 100% FreeBSD
http://www.FreeBSDsystems.COM
Toll Free: 1.877.963.1900
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=