HP3000-L Archives

January 2000, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Donna Garverick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Donna Garverick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:31:32 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
"James Clark,Florida" wrote:

> I would agree to the below sentiment for only long CPU intensive processes.
> But for many normal processes, taking into consideration I/O, memory, and
> having to battle other processes, more CPU's will accelerate the process.
> I/O can now be handled by another CPU, and system housekeeping, etc. Of
> course, you will not see 1 cpu 100%, 2 cpu 50%, etc. type of speed up as I
> would interpret what is said below, but you should see some improvement, and
> depending upon your workload that improvement can be substantial.

james makes a very good point.  sometime ago, there was some discussion here
about adding another processor to our 995/300.  our hp se pointed out that we
*might* see a 10-15% performance gain if we did that.  he explained it this way
-- you can pretty much assume that one processor will be doing nothing than
trying to manage the other three <sigh>                     - d

--
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<

ATOM RSS1 RSS2