[CentOS] Re: Hot swap CPU -- "build" is not a good CPU benchmark

[Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

From: Chris Mauritz <chrism at imntv.com>
> <snipped>
> Oy....I'm terribly sorry.  Moderator, please delete my previous 
> message.  It was supposed to be a private message to Peter.  Bryan, 
> please accept my apology.  It wasn't my intention to riducule you in 
> public.  honest injun....
> <blush>
> Must drink less coffee....

No apology required, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

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.

Makes me wonder if Bruno is hesitant to post any suggestion again ...

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-June/007936.html  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-June/007937.html  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-June/007956.html  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-June/007974.html  

From: Peter Arremann
> That is exactly what I said before you trimmed it off :-)

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
;-).

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_.


--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org