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