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

  • Virtualized CPU cores vs. threads

    - by nedm
    We've got a KVM host system on Ubuntu 9.10 with a newer Quad-core Xeon CPU with hyperthreading. As detailed on Intel's product page, the processor has 4 cores but 8 threads. /proc/cpuinfo and htop both list 8 processors, though each one states 4 cores in cpuinfo. KVM/QEMU also reports 8 VCPUs available to assign to guests. My question is when I'm allocating VCPUs to VM guests, should I allocate per-core or per-thread? Since KVM/QEMU reports the server has 8 VCPUs to allocate, should I go ahead and set a guest to use 4 CPUs where I previously would have set it to use 2 (assuming 4 total VCPUs available)? I'd like to get the most possible out of the host hardware without over-allocating.

    Read the article

  • How to get Windows Server 2008 VM to use multiple cores

    - by David Fraser
    I have a Windows Server 2008 machine running in VirtualBox. On initial installation, only one processor was made available, but now I want to run it as a multiprocessor machine. I have made all four cores available in the VirtualBox settings (as well as enabling VT-x/AMD-V and Nested Paging), but Task Manager still only shows one CPU. However, the four CPU cores are visible in Device Manager under Processors. In the event log on startup, I can see the following relevant events: EventLog.6009 Microsoft (R) Windows (R) 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 Multiprocessor Free Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 0 exposes the following: 1 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) How can I make this system actually boot up as a multiprocessor machine?

    Read the article

  • How to get Windows Server 2008 VM to use multiple cores

    - by David Fraser
    I have a Windows Server 2008 machine running in VirtualBox. On initial installation, only one processor was made available, but now I want to run it as a multiprocessor machine. I have made all four cores available in the VirtualBox settings (as well as enabling VT-x/AMD-V and Nested Paging), but Task Manager still only shows one CPU. However, the four CPU cores are visible in Device Manager under Processors. In the event log on startup, I can see the following relevant events: EventLog.6009 Microsoft (R) Windows (R) 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 Multiprocessor Free Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 0 exposes the following: 1 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) How can I make this system actually boot up as a multiprocessor machine?

    Read the article

  • How to manage processes-to-CPU cores affinities ?

    - by Philippe
    I use a distributed user-space filesystem (GlusterFS) and I would like to be sure GlusterFS processes will always have the computing power they need. Each execution node of my grid have 2 CPU, with 4 cores per CPU and 2 threads per core (16 "processors" are seen by Linux). My goal is to guarantee that GlusterFS processes have enough processing power to be reliable, responsive and fast. (There is no marketing here, just the dreams of a sysadmin ;-) I consider two main points : GlusterFS processes I/O for data access (on local disks, or remote disks) I thought about binding the Linux Kernel and GlusterFS instances on a specific "processor". I would like to be sure that : No grid job will impact the kernel and the GlusterFS instances Researchers jobs won't be affected by system processes (I'd like to reserve a pool of cores to job execution and be sure that no system process will use these CPUs) But what about I/O ? As we handle a huge amount of data (several terabytes), we'll have a lot of interuptions. How can I distribute these operations on my processors ? What are the "best practices" ? Thanks for your comments!

    Read the article

  • Turn off additional cpu cores while on battery

    - by Chris McGrath
    I'm currently an running a quad core processor on windows 7 and was wondering if there is a way to turn off unneeded cpu cores while I'm running on battery to extend battery life it would be nice to do this automatically but will also accept way to it manually if there is no way to do it automatically either in windows or through management software I've searched on the internet and haven't been able to find anything to this effect on google

    Read the article

  • Multicore system. How are the cores "sorted"

    - by asdrubael
    If I have a system with let's say two Quadcore CPUs and HyperThreading enabled, how do I know how the phsyical and virtual cores are sorted? For example if I force a process to run on "CPU 0" how to know which Core this really is? I remember a complex drawing about this, but didn't find anything useful.

    Read the article

  • Programatically detect number of physical processors/cores or if hyper-threading is active on Window

    - by HTASSCPP
    I have a multithreaded c++ application that runs on Windows, Mac and a few Linux flavours. To make a long story short: Inorder for it to run at maximum efficiency I have to be able to instantiate a single thread per physical processor/core. Creating more threads than there are physical processors/cores degrades the performance of my program considerably. I can already correctly detect the number of logical processors/cores correctly on all three of these platforms. To be able to detect the number of physical processors/cores correctly I'll have to detect if hyper-treading is supported AND active. My question therefore is if there is a way to detect whether hyperthreading is supported AND ENABLED? If so, how exactly.

    Read the article

  • Threading and cores

    - by Matt
    If I have X cores on my machine and I start X threads. Let's assume for the sake of argument that each thread is completely separated in terms of the memory, hdd, etc it uses. Is the OS going to know to send each thread to a core or do more time slicing on one core for multiple threads. What the question boils down to, is if I have X cores and my program must do independent calculations, should I start X threads, will they each get piped to a core, or is the presumption that because I have X cores I can start X threads completely wrong? I'm thinking it is. This is with C# --

    Read the article

  • Setting CPU cores off-limits to all threads not specified (preferably in Windows 7)

    - by Shinrai
    I have a really specific machine configuration in the works that would really be helped out if there were any way to do this...basically what I'm looking for is the opposite of setting CPU Affinity for a process. I want to be able to tell Windows "No applications except [x] are allowed on [these cores]." Is there any mechanism whatsoever for doing this? (Yes, I am aware of some of the potential issues this could cause and I normally would never fool with processor affinities, since the OS usually does a damned good job itself, but this is a pretty odd situation involving some software that is very CPU-bound constantly having to wait on interrupts and DPCs and things from other threads.)

    Read the article

  • Curios: What makes CPUs better than others? [closed]

    - by Zizma
    I have been wondering about this for a long while now and was hoping someone here could answer it pretty easily. If I was looking for the most powerful CPU what should I really be looking at? There are so many different parameters of a CPU and I am wanting to know what each thing does and what really matters. Basically this: What is the deal with cores? If I take using optimized applications out of the mix would it theoretically better to get quad core 1.0GHz CPU or a 1 core 4 GHz CPU? Also, what is the difference between maybe an Sandy Bridge CPU versus an Ivy Bridge CPU? If they both were had the same clock speed and number of cores would the Ivy Bridge perform better? Does an older Xeon with an equal clock speed and number of cores to a new i7 really perform worse/slower? Does size matter? Why would I go with a 22nm CPU over a 32nm when the size difference is so trivial? What about the cache? When does the cache come into play with performance?

    Read the article

  • Linux Scheduler (not using all cores on multi-core machine) RHEL6

    - by User512
    I'm seeing strange behavior on one of my servers (running RHEL 6). There seems to be something wrong with the scheduler. Here's the test program I'm using: #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <stdlib.h> void RunClient(int i) { printf("Starting client %d\n", i); while (true) { } } int main(int argc, char** argv) { for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) { pid_t p_id = fork(); if (p_id == -1) { perror("fork"); } else if (p_id == 0) { RunClient(i); exit(0); } } return 0; } This machine has a lot more than 4 cores so we'd expect all processes to be running at 100%. When I check on top, the cpu usage varies. Sometimes it's split (100%, 33%, 33%, 33%), other times it's split (100%, 100%, 50%, 50%). When I try this test on another server of ours (running RHEL 5), there are no issues (it's 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%) as expected. What's causing this and how can I fix it? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Assigning cores to VM in vSphere

    - by user114933
    Complete vSphere newbie here... Background: So, I have a 12 core machine with 24 VMs on it. Currently, all the processing power is shared between these VMs equally. The question: Can I configure one VM to be given two CPU's worth processing no matter what's happening on the other machines? My Research: I tried two things in vSphere... I set the reservation and limit on one VM to equal the same as two cores. To test if my objective was being reached, I measured the time it would take to gzip a file when other VMs were running nothing and when other VMs were running CPU intensive operations. I expected the time to gzip the file would be the same because this VM gets priority for some processing. Unfortunately, the time taken to gzip the file when other VMs were running something was significantly more than when other VMs were not running anything. I tried setting the Hyperthreaded Core Sharing mode to Internal hoping that this would mean that my VM would get at least an entire core to itself. This did not work either. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • ffmpeg not using all cores

    - by user2783132
    I just got my new server with two intel e5-2695 but I was shocked to see that ffmpeg or ubuntu doesn't utilize all cores. top while ffmpeg was running top - 23:35:25 up 2:41, 2 users, load average: 5.35, 4.37, 3.12 Tasks: 333 total, 2 running, 331 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie %Cpu0 : 0.0 us, 1.0 sy, 35.6 ni, 63.4 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu1 : 0.0 us, 0.7 sy, 35.5 ni, 63.9 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu2 : 0.0 us, 0.7 sy, 33.4 ni, 65.9 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu3 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 32.7 ni, 67.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu4 : 0.0 us, 0.3 sy, 32.3 ni, 67.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu5 : 0.0 us, 0.3 sy, 33.0 ni, 66.7 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu6 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 32.6 ni, 67.4 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu7 : 0.0 us, 0.3 sy, 32.7 ni, 67.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu8 : 0.0 us, 0.7 sy, 32.6 ni, 66.8 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu9 : 0.0 us, 0.3 sy, 33.9 ni, 65.8 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu10 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 35.0 ni, 65.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu11 : 0.0 us, 0.7 sy, 30.0 ni, 69.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu12 : 21.1 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 78.9 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu13 : 0.7 us, 0.0 sy, 4.3 ni, 95.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu14 : 0.3 us, 0.0 sy, 5.0 ni, 94.6 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu15 : 24.9 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 75.1 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu16 : 0.3 us, 0.0 sy, 3.7 ni, 96.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu17 : 0.7 us, 0.3 sy, 4.9 ni, 94.1 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu18 : 1.0 us, 0.0 sy, 4.6 ni, 94.4 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu19 : 0.7 us, 0.0 sy, 4.7 ni, 94.7 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu20 : 11.1 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 88.9 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu21 : 1.3 us, 0.0 sy, 4.6 ni, 94.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu22 : 2.0 us, 0.3 sy, 4.3 ni, 93.4 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu23 : 96.7 us, 1.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 2.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu24 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.7 ni, 99.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu25 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 3.0 ni, 97.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu26 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 1.3 ni, 98.7 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu27 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 4.0 ni, 96.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu28 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 1.7 ni, 98.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu29 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 1.7 ni, 98.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu30 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 1.7 ni, 98.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu31 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 1.0 ni, 99.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu32 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.7 ni, 99.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu33 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 1.7 ni, 98.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu34 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 2.0 ni, 98.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu35 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 1.0 ni, 99.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st %Cpu36 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni,100.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st ffmpeg was sent with -threads 0 *I also tried sending ffmoeg with -threads 500- no difference

    Read the article

  • Why would more CPU cores on virtual machine slow compile times?

    - by Sid
    [edit#2] If anyone from VMWare can hit me up with a copy of VMWare Fusion, I'd be more than happy to do the same as a VirtualBox vs VMWare comparison. Somehow I suspect the VMWare hypervisor will be better tuned for hyperthreading (see my answer too) I'm seeing something curious. As I increase the number of cores on my Windows 7 x64 virtual machine, the overall compile time increases instead of decreasing. Compiling is usually very well suited for parallel processing as in the middle part (post dependency mapping) you can simply call a compiler instance on each of your .c/.cpp/.cs/whatever file to build partial objects for the linker to take over. So I would have imagined that compiling would actually scale very well with # of cores. But what I'm seeing is: 8 cores: 1.89 sec 4 cores: 1.33 sec 2 cores: 1.24 sec 1 core: 1.15 sec Is this simply a design artifact due to a particular vendor's hypervisor implementation (type2:virtualbox in my case) or something more pervasive across more VMs to make hypervisor implementations more simpler? With so many factors, I seem to be able to make arguments both for and against this behavior - so if someone knows more about this than me, I'd be curious to read your answer. Thanks Sid [edit:addressing comments] @MartinBeckett: Cold compiles were discarded. @MonsterTruck: Couldn't find an opensource project to compile directly. Would be great but can't screwup my dev env right now. @Mr Lister, @philosodad: Have 8 hw threads, using VirtualBox, so should be 1:1 mapping without emulation @Thorbjorn: I have 6.5GB for the VM and a smallish VS2012 project - it's quite unlikely that I'm swapping in/out trashing the page file. @All: If someone can point to an open source VS2010/VS2012 project, that might be a better community reference than my (proprietary) VS2012 project. Orchard and DNN seem to need environment tweaking to compile in VS2012. I really would like to see if someone with VMWare Fusion also sees this (for VMWare vs VirtualBox compartmentalization) Test details: Hardware: Macbook Pro Retina CPU : Core i7 @ 2.3Ghz (quad core, hyper threaded = 8 cores in windows task manager) Memory : 16 GB Disk : 256GB SSD Host OS: Mac OS X 10.8 VM type: VirtualBox 4.1.18 (type 2 hypervisor) Guest OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1 Compiler: VS2012 compiling a solution with 3 C# Azure projects Compile times measure by VS2012 plugin called 'VSCommands' All tests run 5 times, first 2 runs discarded, last 3 averaged

    Read the article

  • What Would You Do With 48 Cores?

    - by jeroen.vangoey
    The AMD Server team has announced a contest where they are seeking the best essays, videos, or blog posts documenting how you might use 48 cores. They are primarily looking for "what you can do to help society, to help others. That will give you an edge." So, what would you do with 48 cores? Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with AMD (I am even not eligible for the contest because I don't live in the US/Canada) but would love to see what the SO community can come up with.

    Read the article

  • CPU cores and workers / maxservers

    - by user80666
    I'm trying to optimize my apache and nginx installations and have been looking for information on how to setup correct number or min/max servers and connections in Apache and worker processes in Nginx. I was wondering whether or not Apache and Nginx take advantage of multy core processors and how to set configuration in Apache and Nginx? For example, lets say I have a 4 core processor, should I set workers to 4 in nginx? what should I set spare server in apache to?

    Read the article

  • CPU Cores: The more the better?

    - by T Pops
    I currently have a dual-core processor at work and a quad-core at home. I've noticed both PCs are pretty equal as far as launching applications/surfing the web. The difference I can see is that my dual-core is 2.8GHz and my quad-core is 2.4GHz. Is it better to have a dual-core with a fast clock speed or a quad-core with a mediocre clock speed?

    Read the article

  • Why won't Windows use the other CPU cores?

    - by revloc02
    In Windows Task Manager the Performance tab shows the first CPU maxed out, the other 7 just idling along with the occasional spike. What gives? More info: I've got 8GB and only 4.5GB are being used. The Processes tab has no indication of any process hogging processing power. In fact System Idle Process is 98-99. When I program stuff and have like 8 to 12 applications going (several directly unrelated to programming of course) my computer slows to a crawl. Sysyem Info: Intel Core i7-2600K Processor (quad-core with hyper-threading), 8GB RAM, Intel BOXDZ68BC LGA 1155 Motherboard, 500GB HDD

    Read the article

  • How to restrict windows service to X cores?

    - by Martinnj
    I'm currently trying ot figure out a decent/nice way of determening what core(s) a single service should run on, in Windows Server 2008. I'm aware that for procceses there is two ways to do it: set affinity through task manager after proccess is launched. use "start /AFFINITY 0x1" or similar bitmask However this does not seem to work very well with services. When i try to launch the exe that the service will also run (the one that needs restriction) it just spawns a new commandline (and starts the process) but the process terminates shortly after. Does anyone here know how to do a similar trick for services? It is not important what core it is running on, it just needs to be restricted to only one. And preferably it should be something that can be automated, so we do not have to interfere when there is a server restart.

    Read the article

  • Python multithreading, How is it using multiple Cores?

    - by Sabirul Mostofa
    I am running a multithreaded application(Python2.7.3) in a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz. I thought it would be using only one core but using the "top" command I see that the python processes are constantly changing the core no. Enabling "SHOW THREADS" in the top command shows diffrent thread processes working on different cores. Can anyone please explain this? It is bothering me as I know from theory that multithreading is executed on a single core.

    Read the article

  • What affects video encoding speeds?

    - by Pig Head
    FRAPs doesn't compress its videos when you record, so the files are enormous. In a long recording you can get up to a few hundred gigabytes. Obviously, usually you would need to convert/compress them. What affects the speed of this? I don't think the RAM does, as when I converted 600 gb my RAM usage only went to 6 gig, but the processor was at 100%, which is surprising as I have a 6 core processor @ 3.46 ghz. Would clock speed or cores help the most?

    Read the article

  • Take advantage of multiple cores executing SQL statements

    - by willvv
    I have a small application that reads XML files and inserts the information on a SQL DB. There are ~ 300 000 files to import, each one with ~ 1000 records. I started the application on 20% of the files and it has been running for 18 hours now, I hope I can improve this time for the rest of the files. I'm not using a multi-thread approach, but since the computer I'm running the process on has 4 cores I was thinking on doing it to get some improvement on the performance (although I guess the main problem is the I/O and not only the processing). I was thinking on using the BeginExecutingNonQuery() method on the SqlCommand object I create for each insertion, but I don't know if I should limit the max amount of simultaneous threads (nor I know how to do it). What's your advice to get the best CPU utilization? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Ikoula lance un nouveau serveur dédié, le Green GPU propose « 192 CUDA Parallel Processor Cores » aux professionnels de la création graphique

    Ikoula lance un nouveau serveur dédié le Green GPU propose « 192 CUDA Parallel Processor Cores » aux professionnels de la création graphiqueL'hébergeur français Ikoula propose à la location un nouveau serveur dédié qui intègre une carte graphique professionnelle ou GPU. La Nvidia Quadro 2000D est la carte retenue pour le lancement de cette nouvelle offre de serveur dédié. La Quadro 2000D bénéficie du coeur de la technologie Fermi de Nvidia et propose 192 CUDA Parallel Processor Cores, le tout accompagné...

    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

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