Re: Linux - SMP

1998-11-04 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, George Bonser wrote: [ snip ] : You have three choices: : : 1. Live with it : 2. Compile a non-SMB kernel : 3. move to a 2.1.x kernel. FWIW, we have a server that gets the crap kicked out of it (debian.midco.net) which is running 2.1.125 - it's an IBM Server 325 with du

Re: Linux SMP

1998-08-31 Thread Dale E. Martin
Philip Thiem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm wonder, and perhap some you linux buffs could help. HOw great is the > performance gain from SMP? I run on a two processor pentium pro machine all of the time - for doing development, "make -j [ something >1 ]" gives about double compilation speed,

Re: Linux SMP

1998-08-31 Thread Frederic Breitwieser
>HOw great is the performance gain from SMP? I have been debating this >with a friend. I know linux has muli-threaded capability, but like the I'm not a linux guru, in fact, I'd label myself as a linux struggler. That aside, I can tell you that the performance gain of multiple processors entire

Re: Linux SMP

1998-08-31 Thread Frederic Breitwieser
>HOw great is the performance gain from SMP? I have been debating this >with a friend. I know linux has muli-threaded capability, but like the I'm not a linux guru, in fact, I'd label myself as a linux struggler. That aside, I can tell you that the performance gain of multiple processors entire

Re: Linux SMP

1996-10-04 Thread Christoph Lameter
Ricardo Kleemann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : Hi guys... : : I'm wondering if attempting to use Linux-SMP is any good. Afterall, for : real efficiency, don't the programs/daemons/utilities have to be designed : in such a way that they'll make use of SMP capabilities? The operating systems nature