Board index » cppbuilder » Re: XP Home also 64 Bit computing

2005-08-06 04:38:17 AM
cppbuilder40
IIS is not available for download.
 

"tinyabs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Personally, I would pick a Pentium 4 Prescott 1MB L2 800FSB Hyper-threading
+ at least 512MB DDR400 + Seagate 80GB+ SATA, preferably 4 Seagate 80GB+
SATA RAID 5 coupled.
Jonathan
 

help in compilation? Even if I had 128 sata raid hdds, the speed is still
same. You need a very fast memory like DDR600 and a fast CPU to feel the
effect cos the compiler is looking up symbols most of the time. But I ain't
going to spend my money this way.
 

{smallsort}

"tinyabs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
there ? <g>
speed of one drive, with double backup. And because compiling is often
intensive HDD usage, then the fast drives should pay off.
Jonathan
 

As long as the drives are IDE drives then it should be over-complicated and
failure prone but otherwise I guess it would work.
Too hot, minimal memory, too many drives, processor selected for abilities
that compiling and linking do not use.
. Ed

"Ed Mulroy" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Though, if I built this machine, I would have two front 80mm fans, two rear
80mm fans, and a quality case. So heating shouldn't be a problem.
I'll agree 512MB is not that big, but is it really necessary to have a 1Gb
?
Why is this too many drives ? I believe that this is the hookup of drives
for the best performance / backup tradeoff.
I don't know what processor abilities compilers and linkers use, but you
did mention the Pentium M, and AFAIK this is just a slower, cooler variant
of the Prescott.
Jonathan
 

that it does not do this.
code is both partitioned correctly for it and fed to the processor in a
manner consistent with it, then yes, it will kind of give maybe the
throughput of 1 1/4 or 1 /38 processors. However I do not know of any
applications that will take advantage of it.
turn is faster than a Pentium IV. If the Prescott is faster, that's
probably because of a larger cache since it's architecture, like the P4, is
not designed to be much better for 80x86 code than the Pentium II. What it
optimizes is multi-threading and to get benefit from that one needs to use
an operating system that is good at multi-threading, for example OS/2 but
not Linux (which does not have threads) and not Windows (which has finally
exceeded NT3.1's threading performance to where it can actually show more
than 5% gain from a 3rd processor).
. Ed

"Ed Mulroy" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
chips, and feeds it two threads at a time.
feeds it two threads at a time. However, unlike the HT, the D works on both
at one time.
Jonathan
 

near where the jets do their run up. <g>
caches almost everything in sight and so does BCB. If you've a bit hunk of
RAM then things run a lot better. It is not uncommon to hear someone say
that doubling his RAM size gave better results than doubling his processor
speed.
hard drives. I don't have copies of the studies anymore but in them the
statistics on failure rate versus number of hard drives showed failure rate
starting upward noticably at 3 and becoming steeply upward starting at 4.
SCSI drives were not more reliable than IDE except way back when IDE drives
were a new thing. Note that a RAID setup does not change this. If it is
properly configured, a subject in itself, then it masks the error and make
large drive arrays practical because you can continue on when there is a
failure. Also note that drives also generate a lot of heat and are
sensitive to the heat.
. Ed

Maybe someone knows his email address and if so, you can ask him.
Judging from what I've been told in these groups Linux programmers simulate
threads by spinning off processes. However processes are not handled in the
same way as threads and have higher overhead.
. Ed

"Ed Mulroy" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
but in case I ever can, maybe reliability would have improved by then.
Jonathan
 

"Ed Mulroy" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Windows at running high thread counts.
Jonathan
 

afford that many of.
Note that when you use RAID for drives then your storage capacity is much
smaller than the sum of the drive's capacities. In the simplest case, one
which doesn't give that much protection, 2 drives give you the capacity of
one. I worked with a drive farm at a railroad (think about trains hitting
each other at crossings and you'll immediately know their need for
reliability). Each RAID drive was actually 4 physical drives. The air
conditioning load from the drive array was massive!
Note that my information is a couple of years old. Hopefully someone who is
into how drives are behaving currently will jump in. (Andrue are you
reading this?)
. Ed

not know about threads under any of the different operating systems that are
called Unix but I have not been into Unix in a very long time and when I was
it was with the Microport/UDL version and with AIX. BSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD
and NetBSD are likely to be very different.
. Ed

"Ed Mulroy" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
from 04 (I think). Yes, I can get Seagate 80GB SATA's for $80.
Jonathan