On Thursday 30 June 2005 19:47, Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:

As far as this "thread," I think it's rather pathetic that I'm the only one being singled out when someone like Peter can take anyone's suggestion and just rip it out-of-context.

Sorry, I was not realizing that is what I was doing. I read a post where someone suggested using a US-II based system if you want CPU hotswapping. I simply gave my arguments on why I thought it was a bad idea.

No, you said ... "Compiles aren't a great benchmark for a box since its 100% cpu and neglects memory or disk performance but I had the numbers handy for that :-)"

And you continue to assert that it _is_ a valid benchmark for computationally intensive server applications in your countless other posts. "Builds" _do_ often take memory and disk into account (especially memory latency, which _can_ actually be worse on P4 DDR2 platforms than some old EDO platforms ;-).

It is a valid benchmark though :-) compile speed is a actually a good measure for any integer app that is small enough to run in large cache... Image processing, oil companies for their simulations, cad... they all act very similar to compile benchmark - if a compile is twice as fast, a software image rendering is usually twice as fast too :-)

If you run databases or so, then yes, your comment is valid.

I was just trying to "open your mind" to the fact that there _are_ applications where an 8-way, NUMA/SBUS solution _might_ just be usable. Maybe not for you, but for some applications, especially at the price point.

That's _all_ I was saying. I noted others were also trying to give statements that were good reasons. You may think they are not solutions worth the power, but not all of us agree with you. That's _all_.

Fair enough :-)

Peter.