-- Original message --
From: "Mikhail Kuzminsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> But if I'll compare SPECfp2006 results w/x86-64 microarchitecture
> w/2*64 bit FP results per cycle - previous Opteron generation - I'll
> see some strange (IMHO) result. So, for Opteron SE/
This means that 2 additional FP results per cycle in microarchitecture gives
only about 7% of performance increase :-(
the 4 flops/cycle is really for linpack-like code: it assumes you are
executing packed double SIMD.
The question is - should we wait some better results for new incoming
opt
On 10/10/07, David Mathog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Kewley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > But the kernel doesn't really enforce anything useful.
>
> I agree, the kernel should be able to enforce these sorts of limits
> on all processes of a user at once.
>
> Write Linus or whichever ke
I found 1st AMD quad core (Opteron 2347/1.9 Ghz) SPECfp2006 results
(at www.spec.org) obtained by IBM: 11.2/10.7 for peak/base values.
I'll say about 1 core only, i.e. for results w/Autoparallel=NO.
Let me look to other x86-64 microarchitecture w/same 4*64 bit FP
results per cycle, i.e. Intel
Hi all,
On Friday 12 October 2007 04:57:50 am Henning Fehrmann wrote:
> On the other hand, one needs to trunk (HP calls it trunking) the
> ports on the switches. We tried it on HP and Cisco switches.
> The switch collects the packages of the trunked ports and
> redistributes them according to a l
Hello Greg,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> I'm thinking about using "balance-alb" channel bonding on a
> medium-to-large Linux cluster; does anyone have experience with this?
> It seems that it might generate a lot of arp replies if a switch
> fails.
>
We did som
