On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Javier Guerra wrote:
> On Sunday 03 September 2006 8:55 pm, Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:
> > Chip Clock HT Cache Bus Speed
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > 5080 3.7 GHz YES 2MB 1066 MHz
> > 5160 3.0 GHz NO 4MB 1333 MHz
> > Does the .7 GHz and HT worth more then 4MB cache and higher bus speed? The
> > application is VoIP so there is not a lot of IO so I would not think Bus
> > Speed would matter. I am finding mixed information on HT, some say it is
> > great, others say it actually slows things down, could this be why the new
> > chips done have HT?
> HT helps to avoid context switches when used with an HT-aware scheduler. it
> can be very significant for I/O in Xen because everything a DomU does has to
> pass through Dom0 for I/O. dedicating an HT thread exclusively for Dom0 is
> almost as good as giving it a full real core, but usually much cheaper.
> AFAIK, all Xen schedulers, all modern Linux, BSD and Solaris kernels are fully
> HT-aware, and make good use of it. I also think (but not sure) that some
> servicepacks for win2k and winXP gave them most, if not all, of the
> advantages of a modern scheduler.
> the only remaining cases where HT impacts negatively are heavy single threaded
> tasks. there, you'd like to dedicate the whole processor to a process during
> its timeslice, without other tasks taking up resources (cache, rename
> registers, FSB, etc)
All our applications run on Linux and all are threaded.
> with server-like workloads, even more with Xen, HT is usually a good thing.
So, would it make sense to go with the older 5080 and take the extra speed
and HT vs the newer 5160? The only unknown I have is on the CACHE, 2 MB vs
Nathan Stratton CTO, VoilaIP Communications
nathan at robotics.net nathan at voilaip.com
Xen-users mailing list