Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/35 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • ESXi Server with 12 physical cores maxed out with only 8 cores assigned in virtual machines

    - by Sam
    I have an ESXi 5 server running on a 2-processor, 12-core system with hyperthreading enabled. So: 12 physical cores, 24 logical ones. On this server are 4 Windows 7 VMs, each configured for 2 processors, each running VMware Tools. Looking at my stats in vSphere, my "core utilization" is constantly maxed out. Yes, these machines are working hard, but only 8 cores have been allocated. How is this possible? Should I look into reducing the processor count per machine as in this post: VMware ESX server? I checked to ensure that hardware virtualization is enabled in the BIOS of the machine (a DELL R410). I've also started reading up on configuration, but being a newbie there's a lot of material to catch up on. It also seems I should only bother with advanced settings and pools if I'm really pushing the load, and I don't think that I should be pushing it with so few VMs. I suspect that I have some basic, incorrect configuration setting, but it's also possible that I have some giant misconceptions about virtualization. Any pointers? EDIT: Given the responses I've gotten so far, it seems that this is a measurement problem and not a configuration problem, making this less critical. Perhaps the real question is: How does the core utilization of the server reach a higher percentage than all individual cores' core utilization, and given that this possibility makes the metric useless for overall server load, what is the best global metric for measuring CPU load on hyper-threaded systems?

    Read the article

  • Physical Cores vs Virtual Cores in Parallelism

    - by Code Curiosity
    When it comes to virtualization, I have been deliberating on the relationship between the physical cores and the virtual cores, especially in how it effects applications employing parallelism. For example, in a VM scenario, if there are less physical cores than there are virtual cores, if that's possible, what's the effect or limits placed on the application's parallel processing? I'm asking, because in my environment, it's not disclosed as to what the physical architecture is. Is there still much advantage to parallelizing if the application lives on a dual core VM hosted on a single core physical machine?

    Read the article

  • Sun Solaris - Find out number of processors and cores

    - by Adrian
    Our SPARC server is running Sun Solaris 10; I would like to find out the actual number of processors and the number of cores for each processor. The output of psrinfo and prtdiag is ambiguous: $psrinfo -v Status of virtual processor 0 as of: dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss on-line since dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss. The sparcv9 processor operates at 1592 MHz, and has a sparcv9 floating point processor. Status of virtual processor 1 as of: dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss on-line since dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss. The sparcv9 processor operates at 1592 MHz, and has a sparcv9 floating point processor. Status of virtual processor 2 as of: dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss on-line since dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss. The sparcv9 processor operates at 1592 MHz, and has a sparcv9 floating point processor. Status of virtual processor 3 as of: dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss on-line since dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm:ss. The sparcv9 processor operates at 1592 MHz, and has a sparcv9 floating point processor. _ $prtdiag -v System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Sun Fire V445 System clock frequency: 199 MHZ Memory size: 32GB ==================================== CPUs ==================================== E$ CPU CPU CPU Freq Size Implementation Mask Status Location --- -------- ---------- --------------------- ----- ------ -------- 0 1592 MHz 1MB SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIIi 3.4 on-line MB/C0/P0 1 1592 MHz 1MB SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIIi 3.4 on-line MB/C1/P0 2 1592 MHz 1MB SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIIi 3.4 on-line MB/C2/P0 3 1592 MHz 1MB SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIIi 3.4 on-line MB/C3/P0 _ $more /etc/release Solaris 10 8/07 s10s_u4wos_12b SPARC Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 16 August 2007 Patch Cluster - EIS 29/01/08(v3.1.5) What other methods can I use? EDITED: It looks like we have a 4 processor system with one core each: $psrinfo -p 4 _ $psrinfo -pv The physical processor has 1 virtual processor (0) UltraSPARC-IIIi (portid 0 impl 0x16 ver 0x34 clock 1592 MHz) The physical processor has 1 virtual processor (1) UltraSPARC-IIIi (portid 1 impl 0x16 ver 0x34 clock 1592 MHz) The physical processor has 1 virtual processor (2) UltraSPARC-IIIi (portid 2 impl 0x16 ver 0x34 clock 1592 MHz) The physical processor has 1 virtual processor (3) UltraSPARC-IIIi (portid 3 impl 0x16 ver 0x34 clock 1592 MHz)

    Read the article

  • Very uneven CPU utilization with SQL Server 2012 on 2 processor computer with 16 cores / processor

    - by cooplarsh
    After installing SQL Server Enterprise 2012 with the Server + Cal license model, on a computer with 2 processors each with 16 cores (and no hyperthreading involved) and putting the server under extremely heavy load the 16 cores on the first processor were very underutilized, the first 4 cores on the 2nd CPU were heavily utilized, and the last 12 cores were not used at all (because of the 20 core limit for this sql server version). Total CPU utilization was displaying as around 25%. Unfortunately, the server suffered from extremely poor performance even though if the tasks were evenly distributed across the 20 cores it wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad. The Windows Server was running on a VMWare virtual image under ESX Server, but all of the CPU was allocated to the windows server. We tried changing affinity settings (e.g., allocating most cores to CPU and the others to I/O), but that didn't help solve the performance problems. Upgrading the product edition to SQL Server Enterprise Core 2012 not only allowed the SQL Server to utilize the 12 previously unused cores on the 2nd processor, but it also resulted in a much more even distribution of tasks across all of the processors. To get through the backlog of requests cpU utilization jumped to around 90%, and then came down to around 33% once it was caught up, but performance improved dramatically since we failed over to the newly updated version And the performance issues went away. I was wondering if anyone knows what might cause SQL Server to unevenly distribute the load, relying almost exclusively on the first 4 cores of the 2nd processor that had 12 cores idle, and allocate only a few tasks to each of the 16 cores on the first processor. Also, is there any way we could have more evenly distributed the load across the 20 cores that were being used without the product edition upgrade? The flip side of that question is what did the product upgrade do that caused SQL Server to start evenly distributing the load across all of the cores that it recognized? Thanks to any insight to answer these questions and/or links that might help me better understand how to make sense of what was happenings.

    Read the article

  • SPARC M7 Chip - 32 cores - Mind Blowing performance

    - by Angelo-Oracle
    The M7 Chip Oracle just announced its Next Generation Processor at the HotChips HC26 conference. As the Tech Lead in our Systems Division's Partner group, I had a front row seat to the extraordinary price performance advantage of Oracle current T5 and M6 based systems. Partner after partner tested  these systems and were impressed with it performance. Just read some of the quotes to see what our partner has been saying about our hardware. We just announced our next generation processor, the M7. This has 32 cores (up from 16-cores in T5 and 12-cores in M6). With 20 nm technology  this is our most advanced processor. The processor has more cores than anything else in the industry today. After the Sun acquisition Oracle has released 5 processors in 4 years and this is the 6th.  The S4 core  The M7 is built using the foundation of the S4 core. This is the next generation core technology. Like its predecessor, the S4 has 8 dynamic threads. It increases the frequency while maintaining the Pipeline depth. Each core has its own fine grain power estimator that keeps the core within its power envelop in 250 nano-sec granularity. Each core also includes Software in Silicon features for Application Acceleration Support. Each core includes features to improve Application Data Integrity, with almost no performance loss. The core also allows using part of the Virtual Address to store meta-data.  User-Level Synchronization Instructions are also part of the S4 core. Each core has 16 KB Instruction and 16 KB Data L1 cache. The Core Clusters  The cores on the M7 chip are organized in sets of 4-core clusters. The core clusters share  L2 cache.  All four cores in the complex share 256 KB of 4 way set associative L2 Instruction Cache, with over 1/2 TB/s of throughput. Two cores share 256 KB of 8 way set associative L2 Data Cache, with over 1/2 TB/s of throughput. With this innovative Core Cluster architecture, the M7 doubles core execution bandwidth. to maximize per-thread performance.  The Chip  Each  M7 chip has 8 sets of these core-clusters. The chip has 64 MB on-chip L3 cache. This L3 caches is shared among all the cores and is partitioned into 8 x 8 MB chunks. Each chunk is  8-way set associative cache. The aggregate bandwidth for the L3 cache on the chip is over 1.6TB/s. Each chip has 4 DDR4 memory controllers and can support upto 16 DDR4 DIMMs, allowing for 2 TB of RAM/chip. The chip also includes 4 internal links of PCIe Gen3 I/O controllers.  Each chip has 7 coherence links, allowing for 8 of these chips to be connected together gluelessly. Also 32 of these chips can be connected in an SMP configuration. A potential system with 32 chips will have 1024 cores and 8192 threads and 64 TB of RAM.  Software in Silicon The M7 chip has many built in Application Accelerators in Silicon. These features will be exposed to our Software partners using the SPARC Accelerator Program.  The M7  has built-in logic to decompress data at the speed of memory access. This means that applications can directly work on compressed data in memory increasing the data access rates. The VA Masking feature allows the use of part of the virtual address to store meta-data.  Realtime Application Data Integrity The Realtime Application Data Integrity feature helps applications safeguard against invalid, stale memory reference and buffer overflows. The first 4-bits if the Pointer can be used to store a version number and this version number is also maintained in the memory & cache lines. When a pointer accesses memory the hardware checks to make sure the two versions match. A SEGV signal is raised when there is a mismatch. This feature can be used by the Database, applications and the OS.  M7 Database In-Memory Query Accelerator The M7 chip also includes a In-Silicon Query Engines.  These accelerate tasks that work on In-Memory Columnar Vectors. Oracle In-Memory options stores data in Column Format. The M7 Query Engine can speed up In-Memory Format Conversion, Value and Range Comparisons and Set Membership lookups. This engine can work on Compressed data - this means not only are we accelerating the query performance but also increasing the memory bandwidth for queries.  SPARC Accelerated Program  At the Hotchips conference we also introduced the SPARC Accelerated Program to provide our partners and third part developers access to all the goodness of the M7's SPARC Application Acceleration features. Please get in touch with us if you are interested in knowing more about this program. 

    Read the article

  • Can Acrobat 11 be made to do OCR using multiple CPU cores?

    - by tarcman.
    OCR processing takes time. Using multiple CPU cores would speed up processing. Acrobat 10 was not a multithreaded application. How about Acrobat 11? Does 11 by default do OCR using multiple CPU cores (if available)? If not, are there any workarounds, e.g. scripting, to help make Acrobat 11 do OCR using multiple CPU cores? Either through Acrobat's built in scripting language or using external scripts that launch and direct multiple single thread instances of Acrobat to in parallell to parts of the processing job. Note: This question is not too localized (not limited to a specific moment in time) because (1) Adobe does not release new major Acrobat versions very often (Acrobat 10 was released two years ago) and (2) Adobe Acrobat is a widely used application.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to reliably detect the total number of CPU cores?

    - by John Sheares
    I need a reliable way to detect how many CPU cores are on a computer. I am creating a numerically intense simulation C# application and want to create the maximum number of running threads as cores. I have tried many of the methods suggested around the internet like Environment.ProcessorCount, using WMI, this code: http://blogs.adamsoftware.net/Engine/DeterminingthenumberofphysicalCPUsonWindows.aspx. None of them seem to think a AMD X2 has two cores. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • VMware + SQL Server - sqlserver.exe not using both CPU cores

    - by fistameeny
    Hi, I am working on a virtual machine that runs SQL Server Express (as part of Sage Line 50 Manufacturing). The details are as follows: Physical Server (host machine) - Intel Xeon Quad Core 2.1GHz - 4GB RAM - VMDK image stored on RAID-5 500GB SATA drives (7200RPM) - Running Ubuntu 10.04 Server 64 bit - VMware Server 2 Virtual Machine - Windows Small Business Server 2003 - Allocated 2 vCPU's and 2GB RAM - Using 100GB pre-allocated flat VMDK file The problem I have is that there is process that runs in SQL Server that is CPU intensive. On the old physical server that we migrated to the virtual machine from, this would utilise both CPU cores so the sqlserver.exe process would be running 100% on each of the CPU cores. On the virtual machine, it only seems to use one of the two CPU cores, meaning that the process is much slower to run. Question Is there a way to force SQL Server (sqlserver.exe process) to use both of the CPU cores, and distribute it's load between them? Is this a VMware setting that needs changing to allow processes to use both cores?

    Read the article

  • Can a VM perform better when only two cores instead of four cores are presented to it?

    - by arcain
    We had a VMWare VM at work with two cores allocated to it that ran a pretty heinous process in IIS. Under load the process was maxing out the CPU usage on both cores, so we asked our system engineers to present the other two cores of the physical processor to the VM. The engineer immediately said that this would not improve performance at all, but would make the VM perform worse. That statement didn't make much sense to me, and I'm wondering how what the engineer said could be true. Are there actually cases where four cores presented to a VM would cause worse performance than two cores on the same physical hardware? Let's assume an ideal situation where there's only one VM on the host server, so nothing is being shared with other OS instances. I believe the physical server had a single quad core processor, and was most likely hosting multiple VMs. I don't really know what version of ESX was running on the host, nor do I know with certainty what the physical processor config was, but from within the VM I had access to, I saw two 3.33 GHz AMD processors. In the end, I never got to test the engineer's assertion out because (while we were trying to get the VM upgraded) we were able to optimize the process and reduce it's CPU consumption, and 2) we ended up migrating to a different VM on another ESX server which had four cores presented to it.

    Read the article

  • Why does Ubuntu 12.10 only see 8 cores?

    - by tunnuz
    In our lab we just bought a new machine with two 8-cores Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 0 @ 2.20GHz processors which also support Hyper-Threading. I would expect Ubuntu to see 32 processing units, however it only detects 8 of them (the equivalent of just one processor with Hyper-Threading disabled). The bios correctly reports a total of 32 processing units. I am using Ubuntu 12.10 desktop 32 bit. Any idea about how to solve this?

    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

  • Ubuntu Gnome 14.04 - 100% CPU usage alternating between cores

    - by AwDeOh
    I've noticed my Ubuntu Gnome 14.04 has been getting a bit sluggish lately - things like Gnome Shell overview animation are jerky where they were lightning fast, Elder Scrolls Online is stuttering and dropping to low FPS where I previously had a solid 50-60 fps. Out of interest I looked at the CPU History, and when running nothing but the system monitor, I was getting this: That was 15 minutes ago. The 100% load seemed to be alternating between the cores. PC specs: i3 2130 processor. 8gb DDR3 RAM. ASUS P8-Z77M motherboard. Samsung 128gb SSD I've been trying to reproduce the problem, and while I'm not getting the 100% any more at idle, the system monitor is showing an average load of about 20-30%, that's with just Chrome and the System Monitor open. Oddly, if I touch nothing, it'll average out to about 20% - if I start moving the mouse around and do some typing, it's closer to 40%. Is this normal? Any help appreciated, I wouldn't even know where to start here..

    Read the article

  • Error [9783] Support for cores revisions 0x17 and 0x18 disabled by module

    - by iamzarnywoop
    At start up after my dell BIOS load i get the puprle screen and then a black screen and this at the top "[9783] Support for cores revisions 0x17 and 0x18 disabled by module... " sorry i think there's more to it and that's probably crucial but it goes SO fast sometimes and sometimes slower... I just wiped my laptop and installed 13.10 over it and ticked LVM at installation and log in automatically, idk if that would make a difference here... Any way i found someone else on Arch Linux had the same problem but I don't know how to solve it. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=170588 Anyone know what this might be? Please help, new user..

    Read the article

  • IIS, multiple CPU cores, application pools and worker processes - best configuration for a single si

    - by Egghead Design
    Hi We use Kentico CMS and I've exchanged emails with them about a web garden deployment. We have a single site running on a server with 8 cpu cores. In line with Kentico's advice, we have not altered the application pool web garden setting from the default i.e. it is set to a maximum number of worker processes of 1. Our experience is that the site only uses one of the cpu cores - the others are idling. When I emailed them about this, their response was that the OS/IIS would handle this and use other cores as necessary even though the application pool only has a single worker process. Now, I've a lot of respect for the guys at Kentico, but this doesn't seem right to me? Surely, if we want to use all cores, we need to permit eight worker processes (and implement session state storage in SQL server)? Many thanks Tony

    Read the article

  • when to upgrade server to include more cores, versus more processors, versus additional server?

    - by gkdsp
    The server hosting market is separated into single, double, qual, etc., processors, where each processor has several cores, or CPUs. My company will offer a Linux-based web application that relies on an Apache web server and a middle tier for business logic. The middle tier is used to crunch math, and return result to a client. Many clients may access the application simultaneously. The company will start with one processor having 4 cores. I'm trying to understand how the app uses the cores and then how to scale the application as business grows, in terms of servers/processors/cores. For example, I'd assume initially one core would be used for Apache, and the other 3 used to process client's requests for math crunching... Question 1: does that mean, with the 3 cores available, I can handle 3 separate client requests simultaneously (e.g. 1 for each of 3 cores)? I mean, except for the shared RAM, is this effectively like having 3 individual machines (from pt of view or processing client requests simulaneously)? Or, only one client's request may be processed at any one time, but that client's request is divided up into up to 3 cores depending on the type of process running that does the math crunching and whether or not it can take advantage of multi threading (so the # of cores impacts how fast any one client request completes)? I'm confused about what the cores mean to the application here. Question 2: As the business grows and more client requests need to be processed, should the server be upgraded to (A) a new machine with more cores, (B) a new machine with two processors, 4 cores each, or (C) keep the original server and add another server with a single processor? Which route provides the most efficient way to scale the application, in terms of processing more client requests per time interval? Is the choice, for example, limited by RAM (when you need more RAM than box can handle it's time to add another server), or something else? Question 3: Is the total number of client requests processed simultaneously equal to the number of cores times the number of servers (minus the one core for Apache)?

    Read the article

  • Do the amount of CUDA cores matter for Sony Vegas

    - by Saif Bechan
    I am building a new PC, and I am wondering if I am making the right choices. The PC will mainly be used for video editing, and mainly in Sony Vegas. Now I have the choice of going with a video that that has more of less CUDO cores. To be precise I am choosing between a Ti and non-Ti version of an nVidea video card. Now I have read that sony vegas can partially use the CUDA cores to it's benefit, but not that much, and only if you use GPU acceleration. On the other hand I have heard it's better to leave GPU acceleration off as it will effect the quality of the output. Making it so that the CUDA cores actually don't make much of a difference after all.

    Read the article

  • Will a database server perform better running on 2 CPUs with 16 cores or 4 CPUs with 8 cores?

    - by AlexOdin
    What I have: an online financial application (ASP.NET, C#) at peak we have 5K+ simultaneous users backend is running on Oracle 11g (active server + stand-by using Active Data Guard). At peak - 4K-5K database sessions Oracle is installed on Linux 5.8 (Oracle's unbreakable version) the database size: 7TB disk storage: NetApp (connected with 10GB network) I would like to replace old servers (IT will purchase HP blades BL685C). Servers will have 256GB of RAM. I need your help to figure out what to do with CPUs and cores. Options: 2 CPUs (2.3 GHz) with 16 cores each 4 CPUs (3.0 GHz) with 8 cores each Question: Which one should I pick? P.S. Next year, we will migrate from Oracle to SQL server. I hope, whatever option you recommend will work for both platforms

    Read the article

  • SPARC M7 Chip - 32 cores - Mind Blowing performance

    - by CarylTakvorian-Oracle
    Now that we've just announced our Next Generation Processor at the HotChips HC26 conference , my colleague Angelo Rajadurai has a great write-up on what was announced and what this could mean for our ISV partners, covering in particular the SPARC M7 new Software-in-Silicon features such as Application Data Integrity and the In-Memory Query Accelerator. During the same presentation we also introduced the SPARC Accelerated Program to provide our partners and third party developers access to all the goodness of the M7's SPARC Application Acceleration features. Please get in touch with us if you are interested in knowing more about this program.

    Read the article

  • Setting up multiple cores for apache solr for Ubuntu 12.04 and Drupal 7

    - by chrisjlee
    I'm setting up solr locally for my development purposes and integration with Drupal 7. I'm not very familiar with tomcat. My background has primarily been LAMP setups. So I went and installed the package provided by ubuntu for apache solr following this guide. sudo apt-get install tomcat6 tomcat6-admin tomcat6-common tomcat6-user tomcat6-docs tomcat6-examples sudo apt-get install solr-tomcat I've got that working. The apt-get package manager does a great job and allows me to setup solr but with one core. What steps need to be taken to enable multi core setup for apache solr? And below is my solr.xml file: sudo nano /var/lib/tomcat6/conf/Catalina/localhost/solr.xml <!-- Context configuration file for the Solr Web App --> <Context path="/solr" docBase="/usr/share/solr" debug="0" privileged="true" allowLinking="true" crossContext="true"> <!-- make symlinks work in Tomcat --> <Resources className="org.apache.naming.resources.FileDirContext" allowLinking="true" /> <Environment name="solr/home" type="java.lang.String" value="/usr/share/solr" override="true" /> </Context>

    Read the article

  • How are benchmarks for multiple cores calculated?

    - by B Seven
    I found this site to compare CPU's. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html What wasn't clear is how the benchmark for multiple core processors is calculated. If one CPU has 4 cores (such as Intel Core i7 which comes in 2, 4, and 6 core versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7#Core_i7), does that mean that the benchmark should be double that of the version that has 2 cores (assuming the same clock frequency)?

    Read the article

  • ixgbe driver: Limit the max number of cores

    - by Shellex Wai
    I have a Linux workstation with 48 cores and runs ixgbe driver for fiber interface. And I have to test a project name Netmap on it. NetMap is a high performance network framework for high speed interfaces, which has been ported to Linux recently. For some reasons, I must try it on the machine. So I compile it and follow the instructions to run the test problems, but it doesn't work. I check dmesg and it says: [10399.085736] 794.159015 netmap_set_ringid [486] ringid o4o1 set to all 48 HW RINGS [10399.085742] 794.282011 netmap_obj_malloc [220] netmap_if request size 816 too large I asked the author of netmap for help. He told me that I have too many cores in the machine and it should work if I tell ixgbe use less cores (2 to 4 is ok). I am not familiar to driver development and I don't know how to limit the ring numbers by passing arguments to ixgbe driver. So I check the spec from intel's website but found nothing about it. So I come here for more helps. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • The way cores, processes, and threads work exactly?

    - by unknownthreat
    I need a bit of an advice for understanding how this whole procedure work exactly. If I am incorrect in any part described below, please correct me. In a single core CPU, it runs each process in the OS, jumping around from one process to another to utilize the best of itself. A process can also have many threads, in which the CPU core runs through these threads when it is running on the respective process. Now, on a multiple core CPU, Do the cores run in every process together, or can the cores run separately in different processes at one particular point of time? For instance, you have program A running two threads, can a duo core CPU run both threads of this program? I think the answer should be yes if we are using something like OpenMP. But while the cores are running in this OpenMP-embedded process, can one of the core simply switch to other process? For programs that are created for single core, when running at 100%, why the CPU utilization of each core are distributed? (ex. A duo core CPU of 80% and 20%. The utilization percentage of all cores always add up to 100% for this case.) Do the cores try help each other run each thread of each process in some ways? Frankly, I'm not sure how this works exactly. Any advice is appreciated.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >