Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: And, following a series of proxy sites blocked open any page or download from RapidShare download sites have all accelerated the internet da free
Next: pseudoterminals and close
From: Ian Collins on 22 Mar 2010 00:33 On 03/22/10 05:29 PM, Peter Olcott wrote: > I can't reply to this post with quoting turned off. I always > reply point for point, but, with quoting turned off it would > be too difficult to see who said what. Is there any way that > you can report your reply with quoting turned on? There's nothing wrong with David's quoting, but there everything wrong with your agent's. Google for "outlook quote fix" -- Ian Collins
From: David Schwartz on 22 Mar 2010 02:11 On Mar 21, 9:29 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > It seems you may have missed this point machine A and > machine C are given to have identical processors, and the > ONLY difference between them is that machine C has much > faster access to RAM than machine A. You have previously said: "The new machines CPU is only 11% faster than the prior machine." Unless the access to RAM is 8 times faster on machine C than machine A, you cannot explain the performance difference as performance scaling with RAM bandwidth. DS
From: Eric Sosman on 22 Mar 2010 08:02 On 3/21/2010 11:58 PM, Peter Olcott wrote: > [...] > (1) Machine A performs process B in X minutes. > (2) Machine C performs process B in X/8 Minutes (800% > faster) The Rant, Reloaded: I could agree to "87.5% less time," and I could even accept "700% faster" with some reluctance. But "800% faster" means X/9 minutes! (And yes: My teeth itch every time a data-compression maven talks about "compression ratios," because they make the same error. It's a fascination with big, impressive-sounding numbers, that's all. Bah!) Now, where did I put that supply of anti-psychotic pills? -- Eric Sosman esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid
From: Peter Olcott on 22 Mar 2010 08:09 RAM access speed by itself is 600% faster, and it has 32-fold more cache (8MB compared to 256KB) that is 200% faster than the other machines cache and 13-fold faster than the other machines RAM. These stats come from MemTest86. "David Schwartz" <davids(a)webmaster.com> wrote in message news:cbffa3f2-e9b8-49d8-8d89-c2ad0732f894(a)s2g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Mar 21, 9:29 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > It seems you may have missed this point machine A and > machine C are given to have identical processors, and the > ONLY difference between them is that machine C has much > faster access to RAM than machine A. You have previously said: "The new machines CPU is only 11% faster than the prior machine." Unless the access to RAM is 8 times faster on machine C than machine A, you cannot explain the performance difference as performance scaling with RAM bandwidth. DS
From: Peter Olcott on 22 Mar 2010 08:18
"Eric Sosman" <esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote in message news:ho7mab$hln$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 3/21/2010 11:58 PM, Peter Olcott wrote: >> [...] >> (1) Machine A performs process B in X minutes. >> (2) Machine C performs process B in X/8 Minutes (800% >> faster) > > The Rant, Reloaded: I could agree to "87.5% less > time," > and I could even accept "700% faster" with some > reluctance. > But "800% faster" means X/9 minutes! (And yes: My teeth > itch > every time a data-compression maven talks about > "compression > ratios," because they make the same error. It's a > fascination > with big, impressive-sounding numbers, that's all. Bah!) > > Now, where did I put that supply of anti-psychotic > pills? > > -- > Eric Sosman > esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid Yah got me! It is really like this, machine C takes X minutes. Machine A takes 8X minutes. If I would have said 800% of the time, instead of 800% faster, I would have had it right. |