Search Results

Search found 740 results on 30 pages for 'processors'.

Page 10/30 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • SQL 2012 Licensing Thoughts

    - by Geoff N. Hiten
    The only thing more controversial than new Federal Tax plans is new Licensing plans from Microsoft.  In both cases, everyone calculates several numbers.  First, will I pay more or less under this plan?  Second, will my competition pay more or less than now?  Third, will <insert interesting person/company here> pay more or less?  Not that items 2 and 3 are meaningful, that is just how people think. Much like tax plans, the devil is in the details, so lets see how this looks.  Microsoft shows it here: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/future-editions/sql2012-licensing.aspx First up is a switch from per-socket to per-core licensing.  Anyone who didn’t see something like this coming should rapidly search for a new line of work because you are not paying attention.  The explosion of multi-core processors has made SQL Server a bargain.  Microsoft is in business to make money and the old per-socket model was not going to do that going forward. Per-core licensing also simplifies virtualization licensing.  Physical Core = Virtual Core, at least for licensing.  Oversubscribe your processors, that’s your lookout.  You still pay for  what is exposed to the VM.  The cool part is you can seamlessly move physical and virtual workloads around and the licenses follow.  The catch is you have to have Software Assurance to make the licenses mobile.  Nice touch there. Let’s have a moment of silence for the late, unlamented, largely ignored Workgroup Edition.  To quote the Microsoft  FAQ:  “Standard becomes our sole edition for basic database needs”.  Considering I haven’t encountered a singe instance of SQL Server Workgroup Edition in the wild, I don’t think this will be all that controversial. As for pricing, it looks like a wash with current per-socket pricing based on four core sockets.  Interestingly, that is the minimum core count Microsoft proposes to swap to transition per-socket to per-core if you are on Software Assurance.  Reading the fine print shows that if you are using more, you will get more core licenses: From the licensing FAQ. 15. How do I migrate from processor licenses to core licenses?  What is the migration path? Licenses purchased with Software Assurance (SA) will upgrade to SQL Server 2012 at no additional cost. EA/EAP customers can continue buying processor licenses until your next renewal after June 30, 2012. At that time, processor licenses will be exchanged for core-based licenses sufficient to cover the cores in use by processor-licensed databases (minimum of 4 cores per processor for Standard and Enterprise, and minimum of 8 EE cores per processor for Datacenter). Looks like the folks who invested in the AMD 12-core chips will make out like bandits. Now, on to something new: SQL Server Business Intelligence Edition. Yep, finally a BI-specific SKU licensed for server+CAL configurations only.  Note that Enterprise Edition still supports the complete feature set; the BI Edition is intended for smaller shops who want to use the full BI feature set but without needing Enterprise Edition scale (or costs).  No, you don’t get ColumnStore, Compression, or Partitioning in the BI Edition.  Those are Enterprise scale features, ThankYouVeryMuch.  Then again, your starting licensing costs are about one sixth of an Enterprise Edition system (based on an 8 core server). The only part of the message I am missing is if the current Failover Licensing Policy will change.  Do we need to fully or partially license failover servers?  That is a detail I definitely want to know.

    Read the article

  • Virtualized data centre&ndash;Part three: Architecture

    - by marc dekeyser
    Having the basics (like discussed in the previous articles) is all good and well, but how do we get started on this?! It can be quite daunting after all!   From my own point of view I can absolutely confirm your worries and concerns, but also tell you that it is not as hard as it seems! Deciding on what kind of motherboard to buy, processor and how much memory is an activity you will spend quite some time doing research on. And that is not even mentioning storage! All in all it comes down to setting you expectations and your budget. Probably adjusting your expectations according to your budget :). Processors As a rule of thumb you want VT-D (virtualization) technology built in to the processor allowing you to have 64 bit machines running on your host. Memory The more the better! If you are building a home lab don’t bother with ECC unless you are going to run machines that absolutely should be on all the time and your comfort depends on it! Motherboard Depends on what you are going to do with storage: If you are going the NAS way then the number of SATA port/RAID capabilities do not really matter. If you decide to have a single server with lots of dedicated storage it obviously matters how much SATA ports you will have, alternatively you could use a RAID controller (but these set you back a pretty penny if you want one. DELL 6i’s are usually available for a good bargain if you can find one!). Easiest is to get one with a built-in graphics card (on-board) as you are just adding more heat, power usage and possible points of failure. Networking Just like your choice of motherboard the networking side tends to depend on how you want to go. A single virtualization  host with local storage can usually get away with having a single network card, a cluster or server which uses iSCSI storage tends to have more than one teamed up :). Storage The dreaded beast from the dark! The horror which lives in the forest! The most difficult decision you are going to make in the building of your lab. Why you might ask? Simple my friend, having the right choice of storage can make or break your virtualization solution. The performance of you storage choice will have an important impact on the responsiveness of your virtual machines and the deployment of new machines. It also makes a run with your budget! If you decide to go the NAS route you will be dropping a lot more money than if you would be having just a bunch of disks sitting in a server and manually distributing the virtual machines over the disks. Platform I’m a Microsoftee so Hyper-V is a dead giveaway for me. If you are interested in using VMware I won’t stop you but the rest of my posts will be oriented on Server 2012 Hyper-V (aka 3.0)! What did I use? Before someone asks me this in the comments I’ll give you a quick run down of what I am using. - Intel 2.4 quad core processors (i something something) - 24 GB DDR3 Memory - Single disk in each server (might look at this as I move the servers to 2012) - Synology DS1812+ NAS - 3 network interfaces where possible - HP1800 procurve managed switch I decided to spring for the NAS as I will also be using it for backups and media storage (which is working out quite nicely with my Xbox 360 I must say). At the time of building my 2 boxes (over a year and a half ago) these set me back about 900 euros each so I can image you can build the same or better for a lower price. Next article will be diagramming what I want to achieve and starting a build on the Hyper V 3.0 cluster!

    Read the article

  • Concurrent Affairs

    - by Tony Davis
    I once wrote an editorial, multi-core mania, on the conundrum of ever-increasing numbers of processor cores, but without the concurrent programming techniques to get anywhere near exploiting their performance potential. I came to the.controversial.conclusion that, while the problem loomed for all procedural languages, it was not a big issue for the vast majority of programmers. Two years later, I still think most programmers don't concern themselves overly with this issue, but I do think that's a bigger problem than I originally implied. Firstly, is the performance boost from writing code that can fully exploit all available cores worth the cost of the additional programming complexity? Right now, with quad-core processors that, at best, can make our programs four times faster, the answer is still no for many applications. But what happens in a few years, as the number of cores grows to 100 or even 1000? At this point, it becomes very hard to ignore the potential gains from exploiting concurrency. Possibly, I was optimistic to assume that, by the time we have 100-core processors, and most applications really needed to exploit them, some technology would be around to allow us to do so with relative ease. The ideal solution would be one that allows programmers to forget about the problem, in much the same way that garbage collection removed the need to worry too much about memory allocation. From all I can find on the topic, though, there is only a remote likelihood that we'll ever have a compiler that takes a program written in a single-threaded style and "auto-magically" converts it into an efficient, correct, multi-threaded program. At the same time, it seems clear that what is currently the most common solution, multi-threaded programming with shared memory, is unsustainable. As soon as a piece of state can be changed by a different thread of execution, the potential number of execution paths through your program grows exponentially with the number of threads. If you have two threads, each executing n instructions, then there are 2^n possible "interleavings" of those instructions. Of course, many of those interleavings will have identical behavior, but several won't. Not only does this make understanding how a program works an order of magnitude harder, but it will also result in irreproducible, non-deterministic, bugs. And of course, the problem will be many times worse when you have a hundred or a thousand threads. So what is the answer? All of the possible alternatives require a change in the way we write programs and, currently, seem to be plagued by performance issues. Software transactional memory (STM) applies the ideas of database transactions, and optimistic concurrency control, to memory. However, working out how to break down your program into sufficiently small transactions, so as to avoid contention issues, isn't easy. Another approach is concurrency with actors, where instead of having threads share memory, each thread runs in complete isolation, and communicates with others by passing messages. It simplifies concurrent programs but still has performance issues, if the threads need to operate on the same large piece of data. There are doubtless other possible solutions that I haven't mentioned, and I would love to know to what extent you, as a developer, are considering the problem of multi-core concurrency, what solution you currently favor, and why. Cheers, Tony.

    Read the article

  • Seeking help with a MT design pattern

    - by SamG
    I have a queue of 1000 work items and a n-proc machine (assume n = 4).The main thread spawns n (=4) worker threads at a time ( 25 outer iterations) and waits for all threads to complete before processing the next n (=4) items until the entire queue is processed for(i= 0 to queue.Length / numprocs) for(j= 0 to numprocs) { CreateThread(WorkerThread,WorkItem) } WaitForMultipleObjects(threadHandle[]) The work done by each (worker) thread is not homogeneous.Therefore in 1 batch (of n) if thread 1 spends 1000 s doing work and rest of the 3 threads only 1 s , above design is inefficient,becaue after 1 sec other 3 processors are idling. Besides there is no pooling - 1000 distinct threads are being created How do I use the NT thread pool (I am not familiar enough- hence the long winded question) and QueueUserWorkitem to achieve the above. The following constraints should hold The main thread requires that all worker items are processed before it can proceed.So I would think that a waitall like construct above is required I want to create as many threads as processors (ie not 1000 threads at a time) Also I dont want to create 1000 distinct events, pass to the worker thread, and wait on all events using the QueueUserWorkitem API or otherwise Exisitng code is in C++.Prefer C++ because I dont know c# I suspect that the above is a very common pattern and was looking for input from you folks.

    Read the article

  • Sending 2 dim array using scatter

    - by MPI_Beginner
    I am a beginner in MPI, and i am using C Language, and Simulator for Processors (MPICH2), i wrote the following code to send a 2D array to make 2 processors take a line from it but it produces error when running MPICH2, the code is: int main ( int argc , char *argv[] ) { int rank; int commsize; MPI_Init(&argc, &argv); MPI_Comm_size(MPI_COMM_WORLD,&commsize); MPI_Comm_rank(MPI_COMM_WORLD,&rank); char** name=malloc(2*sizeof(char*)); int i; for(i=0;i<2;i++){ name[i]=malloc(15*sizeof(char)); } name[0]="name"; name[1]="age"; if(rank==0){ char** mArray=malloc(2*sizeof(char*)); MPI_Scatter(&name,1,MPI_CHAR,&mArray,1,MPI_CHAR,0,MPI_COMM_WORLD);//send } else{ char** mArray=malloc(2*sizeof(char*)); int k; for(k=0;k<2;k++){ mArray[k]=malloc(15*sizeof(char)); } MPI_Scatter(&mArray,1,MPI_CHAR,&mArray,1,MPI_CHAR,0,MPI_COMM_WORLD);//receive printf("line is %s \n",mArray[rank-1]); } MPI_Finalize(); }

    Read the article

  • Compile and optimize for different target architectures

    - by Peter Smit
    Summary: I want to take advantage of compiler optimizations and processor instruction sets, but still have a portable application (running on different processors). Normally I could indeed compile 5 times and let the user choose the right one to run. My question is: how can I can automate this, so that the processor is detected at runtime and the right executable is executed without the user having to chose it? I have an application with a lot of low level math calculations. These calculations will typically run for a long time. I would like to take advantage of as much optimization as possible, preferably also of (not always supported) instruction sets. On the other hand I would like my application to be portable and easy to use (so I would not like to compile 5 different versions and let the user choose). Is there a possibility to compile 5 different versions of my code and run dynamically the most optimized version that's possible at execution time? With 5 different versions I mean with different instruction sets and different optimizations for processors. I don't care about the size of the application. At this moment I'm using gcc on Linux (my code is in C++), but I'm also interested in this for the Intel compiler and for the MinGW compiler for compilation to Windows. The executable doesn't have to be able to run on different OS'es, but ideally there would be something possible with automatically selecting 32 bit and 64 bit as well. Edit: Please give clear pointers how to do it, preferably with small code examples or links to explanations. From my point of view I need a super generic solution, which is applicable on any random C++ project I have later. Edit I assigned the bounty to ShuggyCoUk, he had a great number of pointers to look out for. I would have liked to split it between multiple answers but that is not possible. I'm not having this implemented yet, so the question is still 'open'! Please, still add and/or improve answers, even though there is no bounty to be given anymore. Thanks everybody!

    Read the article

  • Suitable ESXi Spec

    - by Canacourse
    Finally I have some money to buy a new server and replace the one I have been using for 10 years. Im thinking of running ESXi on the new server. And intend to use it as follows; One W2008 R2 Guest running Exchange, File store, SVN and an accounting application for day to day running of the company. Multiple Guest VMs W2K, XP, Vista & WIN7 that were setup for testing in-house & real customer images also for testing. Probably Two Server Guest Os's W2003 & W2008 running at the same time again for testing. One Guest VM for builds & Continuous integration. Possibly one Guest running W220R2 for a customer website (Portal) This server will have to last another 10 years so I want to get the spec right. Althought I am clear on the memory and disk requirments I am not so clear on the processor(s). Im thinking of 2 Quadcore processors but welcome advice on this. Proposed Spec 10GB Ram 2TB Sata Drives (Hardware Raid 1) 2 Processors (TBC) Normally 3 Server VM's will running concurrently and the other VMs will be started as required. Max expected VMs running about 7. Max users = 4. TIA..

    Read the article

  • What is optimal hardware configuration for heavy load LAMP application

    - by Piotr Kochanski
    I need to run Linux-Apache-PHP-MySQL application (Moodle e-learning platform) for a large number of concurrent users - I am aiming 5000 users. By concurrent I mean that 5000 people should be able to work with the application at the same time. "Work" means not only do database reads but writes as well. The application is not very typical, since it is doing a lot of inserts/updates on the database, so caching techniques are not helping to much. We are using InnoDB storage engine. In addition application is not written with performance in mind. For instance one Apache thread usually occupies about 30-50 MB of RAM. I would be greatful for information what hardware is needed to build scalable configuration that is able to handle this kind of load. We are using right now two HP DLG 380 with two 4 core processors which are able to handle much lower load (typically 300-500 concurrent users). Is it reasonable to invest in this kind of boxes and build cluster using them or is it better to go with some more high-end hardware? I am particularly curious how many and how powerful servers are needed (number of processors/cores, size of RAM) what network equipment should be used (what kind of switches, network cards) any other hardware, like particular disc storage solutions, etc, that are needed Another thing is how to put together everything, that is what is the most optimal architecture. Clustering with MySQL is rather hard (people are complaining about MySQL Cluster, even here on Stackoverflow).

    Read the article

  • How to handle refunds or rebates via a payment processor?

    - by Tai Squared
    I need to handle online payments and am trying to choose a payment processor. One requirement is to handle refunds and rebates to the customer. These won't always be at the time of sale, and not for the entire amount of the purchase. Is this something all payment processors handle? I don't want to have to do this manually as there may be many rebates, and they may be for relatively small amounts. I see PayPal has a refund API, but other parts of their site talk about sending a refund within 60 days. Is this something also required by the API? Amazon FPS also has a refund API that seems a bit more flexible. The Google Checkout refund has an amout field, but it's unclear to me if you can do a partial refund as the description reads "The refund-order command instructs Google Checkout to refund the buyer for a particular order." What are some things to look out for when looking for a payment processor that can handle rebates and refunds? Is there always a time limit in issuing these refunds? Is using a merchant account better for this type of process? I was hoping to avoid that due to the increased cost and complexity, but would consider it if it meets all of my requirements. Update It appears the refund process is fairly simple and handled by all processors. Is there any additional information on rebates? I would like to avoid a process of sending live checks to customers, but I will have to send rebates in some small amounts that may be a few months after the initial purchase.

    Read the article

  • multi-core processing in R on windows XP - via doMC and foreach

    - by Jan
    Hi guys, I'm posting this question to ask for advice on how to optimize the use of multiple processors from R on a Windows XP machine. At the moment I'm creating 4 scripts (each script with e.g. for (i in 1:100) and (i in 101:200), etc) which I run in 4 different R sessions at the same time. This seems to use all the available cpu. I however would like to do this a bit more efficient. One solution could be to use the "doMC" and the "foreach" package but this is not possible in R on a Windows machine. e.g. library("foreach") library("strucchange") library("doMC") # would this be possible on a windows machine? registerDoMC(2) # for a computer with two cores (processors) ## Nile data with one breakpoint: the annual flows drop in 1898 ## because the first Ashwan dam was built data("Nile") plot(Nile) ## F statistics indicate one breakpoint fs.nile <- Fstats(Nile ~ 1) plot(fs.nile) breakpoints(fs.nile) # , hpc = "foreach" --> It would be great to test this. lines(breakpoints(fs.nile)) Any solutions or advice? Thanks, Jan

    Read the article

  • c# STILL returning wrong number of cores

    - by Justin
    Ok, so I posted in In C# GetEnvironmentVariable("NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS") returns the wrong number asking about how to get the correct number of cores in C#. Some helpful people directed me to a couple of questions where similar questions were asked but I have already tried those solutions. My question was then closed as being the same as another question, which is true, it is, but the solution given there didn't work. So I'm opening another one hoping that someone may be able to help realising that the other solutions DID NOT work. That question was How to find the Number of CPU Cores via .NET/C#? which used WMI to try to get the correct number of cores. Well, here's the output from the code given there: Number Of Cores: 32 Number Of Logical Processors: 32 Number Of Physical Processors: 4 As per my last question, the machine is a 64 core AMD Opteron 6276 (4x16 cores) running Windows Server 2008 R2 HPC edition. Regardless of what I do Windows always seems to return 32 cores even though 64 are available. I have confirmed the machine is only using 32 and if I hardcode 64 cores, then the machine uses all of them. I'm wondering if there might be an issue with the way the AMD CPUs are detected. FYI, in case you haven't read the last question, if I type echo %NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS" at the command line, it returns 64. It just won't do it in a programming environment. Thanks, Justin UPDATE: Outputting PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE returns AMD64 from the command line, but x86 from the program. The program is 32-bit running on 64-bit hardware. I was asked to compile it to 64-bit but it still shows 32 cores.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Licensing in a VMware vSphere Cluster

    - by Helvick
    If I have SQL Server 2008 instances running in virtual machines on a VMware vSphere cluster with vMotion\DRS enabled so that the VM's can (potentially) run on any one of the physical servers in the cluster what precisely are the license requirements? For example assume that I have 4 physical ESX Hosts with dual physical CPU's and 3 separate single vCPU Virtual Machines running SQL Server 2008 running in that cluster. How many SQL Standard Processor licenses would I need? Is it 3 (one per VM) or 12 (one per VM on each physical host) or something else? How many SQL Enterprise Processor licenses would I need? Is it 3 (one per VM) or 8 (one for each physical CPU in the cluster) or, again, something else? The range in the list prices for these options goes from $17k to $200k so getting it right is quite important. Bonus question: If I choose the Server+CAL licensing model do I need to buy multiple Server instance licenses for each of the ESX hosts (so 12 copies of the SQL Server Standard server license so that there are enough licenses on each host to run all VM's) or again can I just license the VM and what difference would using Enterprise per server licensing make? Edited to Add Having spent some time reading the SQL 2008 Licensing Guide (63 Pages! Includes Maps!*) I've come across this: • Under the Server/CAL model, you may run unlimited instances of SQL Server 2008 Enterprise within the server farm, and move those instances freely, as long as those instances are not running on more servers than the number of licenses assigned to the server farm. • Under the Per Processor model, you effectively count the greatest number of physical processors that may support running instances of SQL Server 2008 Enterprise at any one time across the server farm and assign that number of Processor licenses And earlier: ..For SQL Server, these rule changes apply to SQL Server 2008 Enterprise only. By my reading this means that for my 3 VM's I only need 3 SQL 2008 Enterprise Processor Licenses or one copy of Server Enterprise + CALs for the cluster. By implication it means that I have to license all processors if I choose SQL 2008 Standard Processor licensing or that I have to buy a copy of SQL Server 2008 Standard for each ESX host if I choose to use CALs. *There is a map to demonstrate that a Server Farm cannot extend across an area broader than 3 timezones unless it's in the European Free Trade Area, I wasn't expecting that when I started reading it.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Licensing in a VMware vSphere Cluster

    - by Helvick
    If I have SQL Server 2008 instances running in virtual machines on a VMware vSphere cluster with vMotion\DRS enabled so that the VM's can (potentially) run on any one of the physical servers in the cluster what precisely are the license requirements? For example assume that I have 4 physical ESX Hosts with dual physical CPU's and 3 separate single vCPU Virtual Machines running SQL Server 2008 running in that cluster. How many SQL Standard Processor licenses would I need? Is it 3 (one per VM) or 12 (one per VM on each physical host) or something else? How many SQL Enterprise Processor licenses would I need? Is it 3 (one per VM) or 8 (one for each physical CPU in the cluster) or, again, something else? The range in the list prices for these options goes from $17k to $200k so getting it right is quite important. Bonus question: If I choose the Server+CAL licensing model do I need to buy multiple Server instance licenses for each of the ESX hosts (so 12 copies of the SQL Server Standard server license so that there are enough licenses on each host to run all VM's) or again can I just license the VM and what difference would using Enterprise per server licensing make? Edited to Add Having spent some time reading the SQL 2008 Licensing Guide (63 Pages! Includes Maps!*) I've come across this: • Under the Server/CAL model, you may run unlimited instances of SQL Server 2008 Enterprise within the server farm, and move those instances freely, as long as those instances are not running on more servers than the number of licenses assigned to the server farm. • Under the Per Processor model, you effectively count the greatest number of physical processors that may support running instances of SQL Server 2008 Enterprise at any one time across the server farm and assign that number of Processor licenses And earlier: ..For SQL Server, these rule changes apply to SQL Server 2008 Enterprise only. By my reading this means that for my 3 VM's I only need 3 SQL 2008 Enterprise Processor Licenses or one copy of Server Enterprise + CALs for the cluster. By implication it means that I have to license all processors if I choose SQL 2008 Standard Processor licensing or that I have to buy a copy of SQL Server 2008 Standard for each ESX host if I choose to use CALs. *There is a map to demonstrate that a Server Farm cannot extend across an area broader than 3 timezones unless it's in the European Free Trade Area, I wasn't expecting that when I started reading it.

    Read the article

  • Snow Leopard on Core Duo

    - by Brendan Foote
    The first run of MacBook Pros have Core Duo processors, whereas all the ones after that have Core 2 Duos. Apple says Snow Leopard only requires an Intel processor, but will a first-gen MacBook Pro get enough of the improvements to be worth upgrading? This is similar to the question about Snow Leopard on an old iBook, but it differs because this processor is supported by Apple, but seems counter to the 64-bit theme of the upgrade.

    Read the article

  • RAID options for a LAMP web server

    - by jetboy
    I'm due to set up a LAMP web server with four drives and a RAID controller to act as a web server. The drives are 146Gb SAS, and the machine has two quad core processors and 16Gb RAM. There will be very few write operations to the MySQL database, and I'll be using as much caching as possible to reduce disk I/O. Question is: Would I be better off splitting the drives into two RAID 1 arrays, splitting up sequential and random disk I/O, or would I get better overall performance putting them all in a single RAID 1+0 array?

    Read the article

  • Just to not to be ignorant.

    - by atch
    Could anyone explain to me why is it that producers of processors claim that their processor can perform so many thousands (or millions) operations per second and yet typical program (Word, VS etc.) on my machine with 4GB, 3500hz starts with no less than 10 sec. Have to mention that I've just formatted disk and tick any necessary boxes to optimize my machine. So if for example outlook starts in 10 sec I wonder how many millions of operations have to be performed to run such program? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Downloading Python 2.5.4 (from official website) in order to install it

    - by brilliant
    I was quite hesitant about whether I should post this question here on "StackOverflow" or on "SuperUser", but finally decided to post it here as Python is more a programming language rather than a piece of software. I've been recently using Python 2.5.4 that is installed on my computer, but at the moment I am not at home (and won't be for about two weeks from now), so I need to install the same version of Python on another computer. This computer has Windows XP installed – just like the one that I have at home. The reason why I need Python 2.5.4 is because I am using “Google App Engine”, and I was told that it only supports Python 2.5 However, when I went to the official Python page for the download, I discovered that certain things have changed, and I don’t quite remember where exactly from that site I had downloaded Python 2.5.4 on my computer at home. I found this page: http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5.4/ Here is how it looks: (If you can’t see it here, please check it out at this address: http://brad.cwahi.net/some_pictures/python_page.jpg ) A few things here are not clear to me. It says: For x86 processors: python-2.5.4.msi For Win64-Itanium users: python-2.5.4.ia64.msi For Win64-AMD64 users: python-2.5.4.amd64.msi First of all, I don’t know what processor I am using – whether mine is “x86” or not; and also, I don’t know whether I am an “Win64-Itanium” or an “Win64-AMD64” user. Are Itanium and AMD64 also processors? Later it says: Windows XP and later already have MSI; many older machines will already have MSI installed. I guess, it is my case, but then I am totally puzzled as to which link I should click as it seems now that I don’t need those three previous links (as MSI is already installed on Windows XP), but there is no fourth link provided for those who use “Windows XP” or older machines. Of course, there are these words after that: Windows users may also be interested in Mark Hammond's win32all package, available from Sourceforge. but it seems to me that it is something additional rather than the main file. So, my question is simple: Where in the official Python website I can download Python 2.5.4, precisely, which link I should click?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 boot manager editor as an option in boot manager

    - by Tomek
    Is there any boot manager editor that I can run in DOS (possibly) before the system will load and edit boot manager itself? I would like to delete, edit VHD's and other files, copying them from the network, changing the names and adding to the manager)? Are there any other boot managers that I can use to boot up Windows 7 and 2008 from VHD file? I would like to have flexibility similar to virtualization w/o performance hit and ability to use all 4 processors on the server (using Windows HPC Server).

    Read the article

  • Core i7 920 vs 870

    - by JL
    I am not sure which is better. Surely with processors you would think the 920 would be a higher version because 920 870. What's bothering me is that the 870 seems to have a higher clock speed, so which one is the better processor?

    Read the article

  • Can I upgrade the processor in my laptop (Satellite L455)?

    - by Alan Robinski
    I have a Toshiba Satellite L455-S5975 which is about three years old. The processor is currently an Intel Celeron 900. Does anyone know if it is possible to upgrade this to a newer one? I have heard the Core 2 Duo T6600 is a compatible replacement for my processor on other brands of computers, and I know the two have the same socket type (PGA478). I mostly need to know if this or any other newer processors are compatible with the Satellite's motherboard.

    Read the article

  • Just to not to be ingnorant.

    - by atch
    Could anyone explain to me why is it that producers of processors claim that their processor can perform so many thousands (or millions) operations per second and yet typical program (Word, VS etc.) on my machine with 4GB, 3500hz starts with no less than 10sek. Have to mention that I've just formatted disk and tick any necessarry boxes to optimize my machine. So if for example outlook starts in 10 sek I wonder how many millions of operations have to be performed to run such program? Thanks

    Read the article

  • 10" display CULV ultraportable?

    - by davr
    Are there any ~10" Intel CULV-based ultraportable notebooks/netbooks? Seems like at 10" the only option is the Atom-based netbooks, I would like something this small but I am willing to pay a bit more for the faster CULV Intel processors. Does anything like this exist?

    Read the article

  • How many domains can you configure on a Sun M5000 system?

    - by Andre Miller
    We have a few Sun M5000 servers with the following configuration: Each system has 2 system boards each containing 2 x 2.5Ghz quad core processors Each system board has 16GB of RAM Each system has 4 x 300GB disks I would like to know how many hardware domains can I configure per system? Do I need one system board per domain (implying a total of 2 domains), or can I create 4 domains, each with one cpu each?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >