Good point, maybe I am placing too much emphasis on single treaded
comparisons.  But single batch jobs on the 996 take less cpu time, but
more overall time, which makes me think the disk i/o is slower.


In article <[log in to unmask]>,
  Gavin Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> > After upgrading from 987/150 to 996/400, performance
> > doesn't seem to be any better.
>
> Without the memory increase, you should have seen (conservatively) a
2x
> increase in performance.  With the extra 2GB I would think that 3x is
> probably a more reasonable guess.
>
> Of course in going to an MP box, you'll only see this level of
performance
> when you're running multiple tasks at the same time.  Make sure you've
> adapted your batch schedules to run 3-4 things at a time in order to
take
> advantage of the extra CPUs.
>
> What are you looking at to determine whether it is faster or not?
Online
> activity might not have been CPU starved to begin with, and single
threaded
> batch performance might not be much different between the two
machines.
>
> G.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.