| yes true...
I did not write this... I posted, with my email, the source
of this information....
Michael
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Michael Coble
wrote:
> Michael A. Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Yet another gross oversimplification and a misleading statement often
> > expressed by reporters who have very little or no understanding of
> > what
> > multiprocessing is,
> > and what are the bottlenecks in a computer system with more
> > than one CPU.
>
> Well, I'm sure that someone out there really wants a dual processor pentium
> pro because it sounds like it goes to 11...Spinal Tap reference:) Anyway, in
> the commercial world, there is plenty of reason to own a multi-processor
> machine, but often that is done to efficiently run applications that take
> advantage of multi-processors. At work, for example we have several Sun 4000e
> servers which run applications like Sybase over Sun Solaris 2.6. Sybase is a
> very sophisticated application that allows individual processors to be used
> for different things. This is very handy in enterprise computing. By the
> same token, a great deal of our web stuff is done in perl5, and having 8
> processors means that a single webserver can fork off dozens of simultaneous
> perl5 processes without grinding the machine to a halt. It should be noted
> that in the Sybase instance, the same application runs on different
> processors, whereas each perl5 process is dedicated to one processor in the
> second. In the long run, I don't believe that the PC is the target audience
> for most MP applications...But I'm sure there are plenty of NT enthusists out
> there just dying to tell me how ready Windows NT is to take on Sun Solaris:)
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Michael Coble, Time Inc. New Media, Pathfinder
> Music: http://pathfinder.com/pathfinder/staff/mcoble/music/
> Gallery: http://www.panix.com/~coble, representing various artists
> Hitman: http://pathfinder.com/pathfinder/staff/mcoble/
> Work: http://pathfinder.com/
>
>
|