Search Results

Search found 854 results on 35 pages for 'cores'.

Page 7/35 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

• C++/g++: Concurrent programm

  - by phimuemue

  Hi, I got a C++ program (source) that is said to work in parallel. However, if I compile it (I am using Ubuntu 10.04 and g++ 4.4.3) with g++ and run it, one of my two CPU cores gets full load while the other is doing "nothing". So I spoke to the one who gave me the program. I was told that I had to set specific flags for g++ in order to get the program compiled for 2 CPU cores. However, if I look at the code I'm not able to find any lines that point to parallelism. So I have two questions: Are there any C++-intrinsics for multithreaded applications, i.e. is it possible to write parallel code without any extra libraries (because I did not find any non-standard libraries included)? Is it true that there are indeed flags for g++ that tell the compiler to compile the program for 2 CPU cores and to compile it so it runs in parallel (and if: what are they)?

  Read the article

• Multithreading - are the multi-core processors really doing parallel processing?

  - by so.very.tired

  Are the modern multi-core processors really doing parallel processing? Like, take for example, Intel's core i7 processors. some of them has #of Cores: 4 and #of Threads: 8 (taken from Intel's specifications pages). If I to write a program (say in Java or C) that has multiple threads of execution, will they really be processed concurrently? My instructor said that "it is not always the case with multi-core processors", but didn't gave to much details. And why do Intel have to specify both #of Cores and #of Threads? Isn't thread just a term that describe a program-related abstraction, unlike "cores" which are actual hardware? ("Every thread runs on different core").

  Read the article

• Oracle’s Sun Server X4-8 with Built-in Elastic Computing

  - by kgee

  We are excited to announce the release of Oracle's new 8-socket server, Sun Server X4-8. It’s the most flexible 8-socket x86 server Oracle has ever designed, and also the most powerful. Not only does it use the fastest Intel® Xeon® E7 v2 processors, but also its memory, I/O and storage subsystems are all designed for maximum performance and throughput. Like its predecessor, the Sun Server X4-8 uses a “glueless” design that allows for maximum performance for Oracle Database, while also reducing power consumption and improving reliability. The specs are pretty impressive. Sun Server X4-8 supports 120 cores (or 240 threads), 6 TB memory, 9.6 TB HDD capacity or 3.2 TB SSD capacity, contains 16 PCIe Gen 3 I/O expansion slots, and allows for up to 6.4 TB Sun Flash Accelerator F80 PCIe Cards. The Sun Server X4-8 is also the most dense x86 server with its 5U chassis, allowing 60% higher rack-level core and DIMM slot density than the competition.  There has been a lot of innovation in Oracle’s x86 product line, but the latest and most significant is a capability called elastic computing. This new capability is built into each Sun Server X4-8.   Elastic computing starts with the Intel processor. While Intel provides a wide range of processors each with a fixed combination of core count, operational frequency, and power consumption, customers have been forced to make tradeoffs when they select a particular processor. They have had to make educated guesses on which particular processor (core count/frequency/cache size) will be best suited for the workload they intend to execute on the server.Oracle and Intel worked jointly to define a new processor, the Intel Xeon E7-8895 v2 for the Sun Server X4-8, that has unique characteristics and effectively combines the capabilities of three different Xeon processors into a single processor. Oracle system design engineers worked closely with Oracle’s operating system development teams to achieve the ability to vary the core count and operating frequency of the Xeon E7-8895 v2 processor with time without the need for a system level reboot.  Along with the new processor, enhancements have been made to the system BIOS, Oracle Solaris, and Oracle Linux, which allow the processors in the system to dynamically clock up to faster speeds as cores are disabled and to reach higher maximum turbo frequencies for the remaining active cores. One customer, a stock market trading company, will take advantage of the elastic computing capability of Sun Server X4-8 by repurposing servers between daytime stock trading activity and nighttime stock portfolio processing, daily, to achieve maximum performance of each workload.To learn more about Sun Server X4-8, you can find more details including the data sheet and white papers here.Josh Rosen is a Principal Product Manager for Oracle’s x86 servers, focusing on Oracle’s operating systems and software. He previously spent more than a decade as a developer and architect of system management software. Josh has worked on system management for many of Oracle's hardware products ranging from the earliest blade systems to the latest Oracle x86 servers.

  Read the article

• sysctl.conf ignore net settings

  - by Steffen Unland

  I have a little problem with sysctl on a Ubuntu 10.04 LTS system. When I set the sysctl values with "sysctl -w " all work fine, but when I try to use the sysctl.conf file. the net settings will be ignored. For example my sysctl.conf # /etc/sysctl.conf - Configuration file for setting system variables kernel.domainname=findme.sysctl # Corefiles information fs.suid_dumpable=2 kernel.core_pattern=/cores/core-%e-%s-%u-%g-%p-%t ##############################################################3 # Functions previously found in netbase net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_fin_wait=1 net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_close_wait=1 when I grep to the values, I can see that the sysctl settings for net.ipv4.netfilter don't set. [host:~ ] $ sysctl -a | grep domainname kernel.domainname = findme.sysctl [host:~ ] $ sysctl -a | grep "core_pattern" kernel.core_pattern = /cores/core-%e-%s-%u-%g-%p-%t [host:~ ] $ sysctl -a | grep "timeout_fin_wait" net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_fin_wait = 120 net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_fin_wait = 120 [host:~ ] $ sysctl -a | grep "timeout_close_wait" net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_close_wait = 60 net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_close_wait = 60 can somebody help me to solve the problem? If you need more information I can post it. Cheers, Steffen

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 desktop crash [closed]

  - by David Mannock

  12.04 is stable under a light load, but not under intensive use of Gaussian 09 vB1. Looks like a heating issue, but psensor says that all is well on 32-cores @56C. Similar results for 64 cores. Machine shuts down after 2-3h. Syslog shows shut down. Whoopsie crash reporter sends in report. After 259 updates on the weekend, I am left wondering what the heck is wrong with this release? My answer would be "EVERYTHING!". Can someone help me do some systematic checks on this OS and hardware.

  Read the article

• Parallel MSBuild FTW - Build faster in parallel

  - by deadlydog

  Hey everyone, I just discovered this great post yesterday that shows how to have msbuild build projects in parallel Basically all you need to do is pass the switches “/m:[NumOfCPUsToUse] /p:BuildInParallel=true” into MSBuild. Example to use 4 cores/processes (If you just pass in “/m” it will use all CPU cores): MSBuild /m:4 /p:BuildInParallel=true "C:\dev\Client.sln" Obviously this trick will only be useful on PCs with multi-core CPUs (which we should all have by now) and solutions with multiple projects; So there’s no point using it for solutions that only contain one project.  Also, testing shows that using multiple processes does not speed up Team Foundation Database deployments either in case you’re curious Also, I found that if I didn’t explicitly use “/p:BuildInParallel=true” I would get many build errors (even though the MSDN documentation says that it is true by default). The poster boasts compile time improvements up to 59%, but the performance boost you see will vary depending on the solution and its project dependencies.  I tested with building a solution at my office, and here are my results (runs are in seconds): # of Processes 1st Run 2nd Run 3rd Run Avg Performance 1 192 195 200 195.67 100% 2 155 156 156 155.67 79.56% 4 146 149 146 147.00 75.13% 8 136 136 138 136.67 69.85%   So I updated all of our build scripts to build using 2 cores (~20% speed boost), since that gives us the biggest bang for our buck on our solution without bogging down a machine, and developers may sometimes compile more than 1 solution at a time.  I’ve put the any-PC-safe batch script code at the bottom of this post. The poster also has a follow-up post showing how to add a button and keyboard shortcut to the Visual Studio IDE to have VS build in parallel as well (so you don’t have to use a build script); if you do this make sure you use the .Net 4.0 MSBuild, not the 3.5 one that he shows in the screenshot.  While this did work for me, I found it left an MSBuild.exe process always hanging around afterwards for some reason, so watch out (batch file doesn’t have this problem though).  Also, you do get build output, but it may not be the same that you’re used to, and it doesn’t say “Build succeeded” in the status bar when completed, so I chose to not make this my default Visual Studio build option, but you may still want to. Happy building! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :: Calculate how many Processes to use to do the build. SET NumberOfProcessesToUseForBuild=1  SET BuildInParallel=false if %NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS% GTR 2 (                 SET NumberOfProcessesToUseForBuild=2                 SET BuildInParallel=true ) MSBuild /maxcpucount:%NumberOfProcessesToUseForBuild% /p:BuildInParallel=%BuildInParallel% "C:\dev\Client.sln"

  Read the article

• What could be a reason for cross-platform server applications developer to make his app work in multiple processes?

  - by Kabumbus

  So we consider a server app development - heavily loaded with messing with big data streams.An app will be running on one powerful server. a server app shall be developed in form of crossplatform application - so to work on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. So same code many platforms for standing alone server architecture. We wonder what benefits does distributing applications not only over threads but over processes as wall would bring to programmers and to server end users and why? Some people sad to me that even having 48 cores, 4 process threads would be shared via OS throe all cores... is it true BTW?

  Read the article

• Load balancing on Ubuntu Server

  - by SabreWolfy

  I have Ubuntu 10.04.4 server (32-bit) installed on a headless quad-core machine with 2GB RAM. I'm running a command-line analysis which is analyzing a large amount of data, but which does not require a large amount of RAM. The tool does not provide any multi-threading, so the CPU load is sitting at 1.00 (or sometimes just a little over). I ran top and pressed 1 to see the load on each of the cores and noticed that "Cpu1" is always running at 100%. I thought that the load would be distributed between the cores, rather than loading one core all the time. I'm sure I've seen this load-balancing behaviour before in Ubuntu or Debian Desktop versions. Why would the Server edition work differently? The analysis will likely take several hours to run, so loading one core at 100% for many hours while the other 3 remain idle is surely not the best approach?

  Read the article

• MacBookPro 7,1 can only see one cpu

  - by gozzilli

  On a MacBookPro 7,1 running ubuntu 11.10, System monitor only sees 1 core (instead of 2). cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep 'cpu cores' also gives: cpu cores : 1 I followed this guide and added acpi_apic_instance=2 to the line with GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT, but that doesn't seem to change the situation. What can I do? I'm using rEFIt, installed under MacOS, and running in dual boot with MacOS. After the rEFIT menu, I'm still presented with the GRUB menu (I'm assuming that's normal). I saw similar posts on this matter, but could not fix my problem with what they suggested. EDIT: With the method mentioned above the computer runs sometimes with 1 core and other times with 2. Why is that? How can it be fixed?

  Read the article

• ubuntu 11.10 on MacBookPro 7,1 can only see one cpu

  - by gozzilli

  On a MacBookPro 7,1 running ubuntu 11.10, System monitor only sees 1 core (instead of 2). cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep 'cpu cores' also gives: cpu cores : 1 I followed this guide and added acpi_apic_instance=2 to the line with GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT, but that doesn't seem to change the situation. What can I do? I'm using rEFIt, installed under MacOS, and running in dual boot with MacOS. After the rEFIT menu, I'm still presented with the GRUB menu (I'm assuming that's normal). I saw similar posts on this matter, but could not fix my problem with what they suggested. Any help appreciated. Thanks!

  Read the article

• What could be a reason for cross-platform server applications developer to make his app work in multiple processes?

  - by Kabumbus

  We consider a server app development - heavily loaded with messing with big data streams. An app will be running on one powerful server. A server app will be developed in form of crossplatform application - working on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. So same code, many platforms for stand alone server architecture. We wonder what are the benefits of distributing applications not only over threads but over processes as well, for programmers and server end users? Some people said to me that even having 48 cores, 4 process threads would be shared via OS through all cores, is that true?

  Read the article

• How to find virtualization performance bottlenecks?

  - by Martin

  We have recently started moving our C++ build server(s) from real machines into VMs. (MS Hyper-V) We have some performance issues that I've currently no idea how to address. We have: Test-Box - this is a piece of desktop workstation hardware my co-worker used to set up the VM before we moved it to the actual server hardware Srv-Box - this is the server hardware Test-Box-Real - This is Windows running directly on the Test-Box HW Test-Box-VM - This is Windows in a Hyper-V VM on the Test-Box HW Srv-Box-Real- This is Server2008R2 running on the Srv-Box HW. Srv-Box-VM- This is Windows running in a Hyper-V VM on the Srv-Box HW, i.e. on Srv-Box-Real. Now, the problem is that we compared Build times between Test-Box-Real and Test-Box-VM and they were basically equal (within about 2%). Then we moved the VM to the Srv-Box machine and what we saw there is that we have a significant performance degradation between Srv-Box-Real and Srv-Box-VM, that is, where we saw no differences on the Test HW we now do see major differences in performance on the actual Server HW. (Builds about ~~ 50% slower inside the VM.) I should add that both the Test-Box and the Srv-Box are only running this one single VM and doing nothing else. I should also note that the "Real" OS is Win2008R2(64bit) and the VM hosted OS is Wind2003R2(32bit). Hardware specs: Srv-Box: Intel XEON E5640 @ 2.67Ghz (This means 8 cores with hyperthreading on the Real system and "only" 4 cores on the VM, since Hyper-V doesn't allow for hyperthreading, but number of cores doesn't seem to explain the problem here.) 16GB RAM (we have 4GB assigned to the VM) Virtual DELL RAID 1 (2x 450GB HUS156045VLS600 Hitachi 15k SAS drives) Test-Box: Intel XEON E31245 @ 3.3GHz 16GB RAM WD VelociRaptor 600GB 10k RPM SATA Note again that I'm only concerned with the differences between Srv-Box-Real and Srv-Box-VM (high) vs. the differences seen btw. Test-Box-Real and Test-Box-VM (low). Why would one machine have parity when comparing VM vs Real performance and the other (server grade HW no less) would have a large disparity? (Both being XEON CPUs ...)

  Read the article

• /etc/security/limits.conf for setting program limits in Linux

  - by Flavius Akerele

  I have the following inside /etc/security/limits.conf (I have specified root separately because * will not include it.) user2 - core unlimited * - core 0 root - core 0 * - rss 512000 root - rss 512000 * - nproc 100 root - nproc 100 * - maxlogins 1 root - maxlogins 1 I run a program as user2 (./programname) but /proc/3498/limits says cores are disabled: Limit Soft Limit Hard Limit Units Max cpu time unlimited unlimited seconds Max file size unlimited unlimited bytes Max data size unlimited unlimited bytes Max stack size 8388608 unlimited bytes Max core file size 0 0 bytes Max resident set 524288000 524288000 bytes Max processes 100 100 processes Max open files 1024 1024 files Max locked memory 65536 65536 bytes Max address space unlimited unlimited bytes Max file locks unlimited unlimited locks Max pending signals 14001 14001 signals Max msgqueue size 819200 819200 bytes Max nice priority 0 0 Max realtime priority 0 0 Max realtime timeout unlimited unlimited us Both ulimit -Sa and ulimit -Ha output that cores are disabled: core file size (blocks, -c) 0 data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited scheduling priority (-e) 0 file size (blocks, -f) unlimited pending signals (-i) 14001 max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 64 max memory size (kbytes, -m) 512000 open files (-n) 1024 pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8 POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200 real-time priority (-r) 0 stack size (kbytes, -s) unlimited cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited max user processes (-u) 100 virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited file locks (-x) unlimited Why are cores disabled ?

  Read the article

• Performance degrades for more than 2 threads on Xeon X5355

  - by zoolii

  Hi All, I am writing an application using boost threads and using boost barriers to synchronize the threads. I have two machines to test the application. Machine 1 is a core2 duo (T8300) cpu machine (windows XP professional - 4GB RAM) where I am getting following performance figures : Number of threads :1 , TPS :21 Number of threads :2 , TPS :35 (66 % improvement) further increase in number of threads decreases the TPS but that is understandable as the machine has only two cores. Machine 2 is a 2 quad core ( Xeon X5355) cpu machine (windows 2003 server with 4GB RAM) and has 8 effective cores. Number of threads :1 , TPS :21 Number of threads :2 , TPS :27 (28 % improvement) Number of threads :4 , TPS :25 Number of threads :8 , TPS :24 As you can see, performance is degrading after 2 threads (though it has 8 cores). If the program has some bottle neck , then for 2 thread also it should have degraded. Any idea? , Explanations ? , Does the OS has some role in performance ? - It seems like the Core2duo (2.4GHz) scales better than Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz) though it has better clock speed. Thank you -Zoolii

  Read the article

• /etc/security/limits.conf for setting program limits in Linux

  - by Flavius Akerele

  I have the following inside /etc/security/limits.conf (I have specified root separately because * will not include it.) user2 - core unlimited * - core 0 root - core 0 * - rss 512000 root - rss 512000 * - nproc 100 root - nproc 100 * - maxlogins 1 root - maxlogins 1 I run a program as user2 (./programname) but /proc/3498/limits says cores are disabled: Limit Soft Limit Hard Limit Units Max cpu time unlimited unlimited seconds Max file size unlimited unlimited bytes Max data size unlimited unlimited bytes Max stack size 8388608 unlimited bytes Max core file size 0 0 bytes Max resident set 524288000 524288000 bytes Max processes 100 100 processes Max open files 1024 1024 files Max locked memory 65536 65536 bytes Max address space unlimited unlimited bytes Max file locks unlimited unlimited locks Max pending signals 14001 14001 signals Max msgqueue size 819200 819200 bytes Max nice priority 0 0 Max realtime priority 0 0 Max realtime timeout unlimited unlimited us Both ulimit -Sa and ulimit -Ha output that cores are disabled: core file size (blocks, -c) 0 data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited scheduling priority (-e) 0 file size (blocks, -f) unlimited pending signals (-i) 14001 max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 64 max memory size (kbytes, -m) 512000 open files (-n) 1024 pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8 POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200 real-time priority (-r) 0 stack size (kbytes, -s) unlimited cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited max user processes (-u) 100 virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited file locks (-x) unlimited Why are cores disabled ?

  Read the article

• Three server processes consume no more than 50% of Dual Core CPU

  - by thor

  I have three processes running on Intel Core 2 Duo CPU. From watching output of 'top' and graphs of CPU load (drawn by MRTG, data collection via SNMP) I can see that CPU load is never more than 50%, and, most of the day, when those processes are busy CPU load has a ceiling at 50 %. I mean, CPU load grows up to 50% in the morning and stays there until late evening. My first thought was that only one core was used at 100% thus giving 50% of both CPUs. But, as there are three processes running and from 'top' I see that both cores are being loaded, so this is not the case. schedtool shows that CPU affinity for those three processes is at default, 0x03, allowing them to use both cores. If I force one process to one core (schedtool -a 0x01), and two others to second (schedtool -a 0x02), cumulative usage grows beyond 50%. Why three processes seem to consume only 50% of two cores? Why forcing them to different CPUs allows usage to grow higher? Any hints? P.S. Processes in question are Counter-Strike servers.

  Read the article

• What's throttling the database?

  - by Troels Arvin

  Hardware: Intel x86_64 with 192GB of RAM. OS: CentOS 5.4 x86_64. DBMS: DB2 v. 9.7.1 64 bit. During certain special workloads (e.g. parallel REORGs/RUNSTATs), I've seen the server transporting 450MB/s with 25000IO/s (yes, there is probably some storage system caching happening here) while all CPU cores were happily working in an even mix of usermode/wait. And disk benchmark tools can also bring some very satisfying bandwith and IO/s numbers to the table. On the other hand, we also have another scenario: A single rather complex query with at least one large table scan. db2's "list applications" reports that the query is Executing (not locked). IO: At most 10MB/s, 500 IO/s; CPU: two cores in 99.9% wait state, all other cores 100% idle. The tables which the query reads from have been altered to have LOCKSIZE=TABLE, so I would think that lock list work is zero. What's going on in such a situation? What tools/snapshots/... can I use to gain better insight in such a case?

  Read the article

• Does using a hexacore CPU make sense?

  - by Exa

  I'm currently planning to upgrade my computer system and I want to exchange CPU, board and RAM. I already had a look at some hexacore-CPUs from AMD and would like to know if it makes any sense to use such a CPU with six cores. Is there any software which really uses six cores? Especially in gaming? I'm using this PC mostly for gaming and from time to time for developing. I know that on the dual-core system (2 x 3GHz) I currently use, Visual Studio creates two instances of the compiler, one for each core. Would there be six instances of the compiler on a hexacore system for super fast compiling? Is there any software that uses six cores? Would running two applications cause the usage of more CPUs? (For example two CPUs for a game you're playing while two other CPUs are used for compiling at the same time) I hope someone can point out the benefits of a hexacore system. The OS would be Windows 7 64 Bit and I use the PC for gaming most of the time. (Crysis 2, CoD, stuff like that)

  Read the article

• i7-980X at 70% speed

  - by Buxley

  Hi we bought a nice computer to use to solve optimization problems. Intel i7-980X@3,33 GHz with 12 GB of Team Group 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM. When we use Gurobi the computer uses all 12 cores at maximum in the beginning of the solve. However after a while (about 8 hrs) it all cores jump between 65 and 85% When I solve the same models on an i7 930 all cores are at a near 100% level even after longer solution times. We first thought that the Hard disk was the bottleneck since Gurobi writes out nodefiles after the memorylimit is used. However since the new computer have 12 GB of RAM we put the memorylimit to 7 GB so the solver only used the RAM and still with the same performance in the processor. Any ideas about the bottleneck? As I said earlier it works at 100% for the first hours or so . Thanks very much for any answers! Our plan was to overclock it but we can't even get it to work at normal speed yet!

  Read the article

• CPU operating temperature ranges

  - by osij2is

  I have an AMD Phenom II 960T with 2 cores unlocked for a total of 6 cores. I don't overclock at all. I have a Arctic Cooling ACALP64 Heatsink/Fan installed. I'm currently running ESXi 5.0 so I have to go into the BIOS to read the CPU temperatures, which at idle seem to be in the 71-74C range. To me, this is pretty high, but I cannot find any official temperature ranges that AMD says the CPU can work well within. There seems to be a lot of questions on superuser and numerous forums around CPU temperatures but no one seems to have a clear consensus as to what the manufacturer temperature ranges are for specific CPUs. I've tried searching through AMDs site to no avail. At this point, I'd be willing to shut off the 2 extra cores if it keeps the heat down but until I get some sort of tolerance or range for temperature, I have no idea if the CPU is being damaged or not. Can anyone point to a direct source, article, FAQ from AMD that specifically states their CPUs temperature range? Or are CPU temperature ranges so varying that there's no possible baseline? Am I being too paranoid about this? To me, anything over 65C is a bit much and if I'm in the low-mid 70s range with NO VMs running, what can I expect if I have several VMs running?

  Read the article

• i7 x980 at 70% speed

  - by Buxley

  Hi we bought a nice computer to use to solve optimization problems. intel i7 X980@3,33 Mhz with 12 Gb of Team Group 1600 MHz ddr3 Ram. When we use Gurobi The Computer uses all 12 cores at maximum in the beginning of the solve. However after a while (about 8 hrs) it all cores jump between 65 and 85% When I solve the same models on an I7 930 all cores are at a near 100% level even after longer solution times. we first thought that the Harddisk was the bottleneck since Gurobi writes out nodefiles after the memorylimit is used. However since the new computer have 12 GB of Ram we put the memorylimit to 7 GB so the solver only used the RAM and still with the same performance in the processor. Any Ideas about the bottleneck? As I said earlier it works at 100% for the first hours or so . Thanks very much for any answers! Our plan was to overclock it but we can't even get it to work at normal speed yet!

  Read the article

• Multithreading or task parallel library

  - by Bruce Adams

  I have an application which performs 30 independent tasks simultaneously using multithreading, each task retrieves data over http, performs a calculation and returns a result to the ui thread. Can I use tpl to perform the same tasks? Does tpl create 30 new threads and spread them over all the available cores, or does it just split the tasks over the available cores and use one thread per core? Will there be a performance boost using tpl over multithreading in this case?

  Read the article

• Task Manager: CPU usage history

  - by Nezdet

  I bougth recently a server with 2 x X5550, they are quad (4 cores each) total 8 cores If I check the task manager it shows in the CPU usage history 16 diagrams, Should't it be 8 cause I have 2 processors with quad? or the diagrams maybee shows the Threads of the CPU?

  Read the article

• Is it too early to start designing for Task Parallel Library?

  - by Joe Erickson

  I have been following the development of the .NET Task Parallel Library (TPL) with great interest since Microsoft first announced it. There is no doubt in my mind that we will eventually take advantage of TPL. What I am questioning is whether it makes sense to start taking advantage of TPL when Visual Studio 2010 and .NET 4.0 are released, or whether it makes sense to wait a while longer. Why Start Now? The .NET 4.0 Task Parallel Library appears to be well designed and some relatively simple tests demonstrate that it works well on today's multi-core CPUs. I have been very interested in the potential advantages of using multiple lightweight threads to speed up our software since buying my first quad processor Dell Poweredge 6400 about seven years ago. Experiments at that time indicated that it was not worth the effort, which I attributed largely to the overhead of moving data between each CPU's cache (there was no shared cache back then) and RAM. Competitive advantage - some of our customers can never get enough performance and there is no doubt that we can build a faster product using TPL today. It sounds fun. Yes, I realize that some developers would rather poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick, but we really enjoy maximizing performance. Why Wait? Are today's Intel Nehalem CPUs representative of where we are going as multi-core support matures? You can purchase a Nehalem CPU with 4 cores which share a single level 3 cache today, and most likely a 6 core CPU sharing a single level 3 cache by the time Visual Studio 2010 / .NET 4.0 are released. Obviously, the number of cores will go up over time, but what about the architecture? As the number of cores goes up, will they still share a cache? One issue with Nehalem is the fact that, even though there is a very fast interconnect between the cores, they have non-uniform memory access (NUMA) which can lead to lower performance and less predictable results. Will future multi-core architectures be able to do away with NUMA? Similarly, will the .NET Task Parallel Library change as it matures, requiring modifications to code to fully take advantage of it? Limitations Our core engine is 100% C# and has to run without full trust, so we are limited to using .NET APIs.

  Read the article

• What is difference between Thread Affinity and Process affinity ?

  - by DotNetBeginner

  What is difference between Thread Affinity and Process affinity ? If I have two Threads and I have duel core machine then is it possible to run these two threads parallely on the two cores ? If I use processor affinity Mask then I can control execution of a process on the cores but when I have to run threads on a particular core how can I make these threads core specific ? A very simple example will be appreciated.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >