Look at the first screenshot of task manager. Realize that it's 4 ROWS 
of graphs. Read the physical memory amount.

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx

Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.

Post a reply to this message

4 x 16 CPU cores? And all idle?

I want to make babies with this thing... Babies rendered with POV-Ray!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Look at the first screenshot of task manager. Realize that it's 4 ROWS 
> of graphs. Read the physical memory amount.

Looks like he is running a prototype version of the next Windows... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Look at the first screenshot of task manager. Realize that it's 4 ROWS 
>> of graphs. Read the physical memory amount.
> 
> Looks like he is running a prototype version of the next Windows... ;-)
> 

Don't tell me that's the minimum requirements..

Post a reply to this message

> Don't tell me that's the minimum requirements..

No no no, he's only using 4% of the RAM there!

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Don't tell me that's the minimum requirements..
> 
> No no no, he's only using 4% of the RAM there!
> 

Oh, so ... only about 40GB of RAM, then ...

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Oh, so ... only about 40GB of RAM, then ...

http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00160.html

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4885f9e5$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>>> Don't tell me that's the minimum requirements..
>>
>> No no no, he's only using 4% of the RAM there!
>>
>
> Oh, so ... only about 40GB of RAM, then ...

   Oh wow, that would be SO nice! See the page-file?  OoO

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4885f0f9$1@news.povray.org...
> > Look at the first screenshot of task manager. Realize that it's 4 ROWS
> > of graphs. Read the physical memory amount.
>
> Looks like he is running a prototype version of the next Windows... ;-)

Dunno. I'll have to check tomorrow, but I think that's Windows Server 2008.
The version of windows that's in dev (windows 7) is, afaik, a workstation
version, not a server version.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...
> Look at the first screenshot of task manager. Realize that it's 4 ROWS
> of graphs. Read the physical memory amount.
>

Nice. Wonder where I can get one of those... <g>

>
> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.

I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big servers.
The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only manifests
on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory

Post a reply to this message

In article <4885f9e5$1@news.povray.org>, mra### [at] hotmailcom says...
> scott wrote:
> >> Don't tell me that's the minimum requirements..
> > 
> > No no no, he's only using 4% of the RAM there!
> > 
> 
> Oh, so ... only about 40GB of RAM, then ...
> 
No, that's 40GB in the machine, the other 80GB is on the HDD. lol

Seriously, someone was doing a poorly done, but interesting comparison 
on Windows vs. Linux memory usage. Windows simply crashed at a certain 
point on his when swap partition was off, while Linux didn't even 
notice, since it never, under the configuration it used on installation, 
used it anyway. Windows of course wouldn't boot at all in 512MB, but 
Linux simply refused to run the desktop. And.. memory usage of tasks... 
Windows swallowed in average about 30+% more (per task), for every thing 
you did with it, and in the case of IE 7, refused to give any of it back 
until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that 
fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor 
utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on 
a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while 
just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.

Basically, windows seems to be so tuned (and not possible to untune) to 
swap shit out when not explicitly needed that half your processor 
activity and most of your system memory is constantly being dumped back 
and forth from the HDD, and that is without asking, "Why the hell does 
it take 20% more to do the same thing anyway, never mind things like IE 
7 never returning any of it when no longer needed? (Should be noted, 
this is also the same stupid issue we ran into with Active Script. It 
failed to "release" memory immediately, so every time you loaded, ran, 
then dropped a small fragment of code, while there was still a main 
script running in the client application, it would eat a bit of your 
available ram. Do that 2,000-3,000 times in a row and your client 
crashed do to sudden lack of memory, 99% of which shouldn't have even 
still been "in use".)

And we wonder why it is still "unstable"? lol

-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> Nice. Wonder where I can get one of those... <g>

Why Gail, I thought you *already* had lots of big servers to play with? ;-)

[Although possibly not with a whole 2TB of RAM...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 22-Jul-08 22:42, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...

>> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.
> 
> I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big servers.
> The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only manifests
> on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory

is that sarcasm?

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 22-Jul-08 22:42, Gail Shaw wrote:
> > "Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.
> >
> > I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big
servers.
> > The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only
manifests
> > on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory
>
> is that sarcasm?

No.

SQL Server 2005 did have a 'bug' that only manifested on servers with more
than 20 GB memory. Don't want the same to happen with the OS.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48864b76$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > Nice. Wonder where I can get one of those... <g>
>
> Why Gail, I thought you *already* had lots of big servers to play with?
;-)

I do, but that puts my 16 proc 64GB box to shame.
Anyay, I only have access to the big servers til friday. After that the
biggest machine I'll be able to test on is my new (still in construction)
quad code, 4GB desktop.

Post a reply to this message

On 22-Jul-08 23:28, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 22-Jul-08 22:42, Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> "Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>>> news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.
>>> I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big
> servers.
>>> The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only
> manifests
>>> on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory
>> is that sarcasm?
> 
> No.
> 
> SQL Server 2005 did have a 'bug' that only manifested on servers with more
> than 20 GB memory. Don't want the same to happen with the OS.
> 

Ah, ok, didn't know that. I did know that quite a lot of the things MS 
make have trouble running on an average machine when the software comes 
on the market. But that was not what you were referring to.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Ah, ok, didn't know that. I did know that quite a lot of the things MS 
> make have trouble running on an average machine when the software comes 
> on the market. But that was not what you were referring to.
> 

That's due to design, though.

You can spend 12 months optimizing something to run on current hardware, 
or wait 18 months and the hardware will have caught up to the point that 
noone cares anymore.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
> just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.

The spikes are pretty meaningless, because it depends on what setting you 
have the update speed on in task manager.  And I suspect the "update speed" 
is different on Linux.

Anyway, I want my OS to use 100% CPU when I instruct it to do something 
immediately, that's why I spent good money on a fast processor.

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message

>until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that
>fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor
>utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on
>a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
>just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.

Are you saying Linux wastes 98 - 99% of the CPU? Typical 1-2% CPU
utilization and a cap at 24% tells me that that particular system or Linux
has a severe bottleneck somewhere else.

It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show 100%
utilization in all active subsystems when performing non-interactive tasks
like launching an application, for instance. Low CPU usage can be a symptom
of poor disk caching.

Post a reply to this message

>> Why Gail, I thought you *already* had lots of big servers to play with?
> ;-)
> 
> I do, but that puts my 16 proc 64GB box to shame.

[Invisible wants to play with Gail's box big anyway...]

> Anyay, I only have access to the big servers til friday. After that the
> biggest machine I'll be able to test on is my new (still in construction)
> quad code, 4GB desktop.

Aww... If it makes you feel any better, *my* desktop box has 256 MB RAM 
and only one core. (AthlonXP 1700 I think...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4886e543@news.povray.org...

>
> > Anyay, I only have access to the big servers til friday. After that the
> > biggest machine I'll be able to test on is my new (still in
construction)
> > quad code, 4GB desktop.
>
> Aww... If it makes you feel any better, *my* desktop box has 256 MB RAM
> and only one core. (AthlonXP 1700 I think...)

Work or home? The quad core I'm talking about is my home machine. The
desktops at work aren't very impressive either

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4886e09d@news.povray.org...

> It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show 100%
> utilization in all active subsystems when performing non-interactive tasks
> like launching an application, for instance. Low CPU usage can be a
symptom
> of poor disk caching.

75% is about the max that you want to see sustained for long periods. More
than that means there's too much contention. That's more applicable to
servers than desktops, and by sustained I mean 10 min or more.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:42:08 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message
> 
>>until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that
>>fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor
>>utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on
>>a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
>>just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.
> 
> Are you saying Linux wastes 98 - 99% of the CPU? Typical 1-2% CPU
> utilization and a cap at 24% tells me that that particular system or
> Linux has a severe bottleneck somewhere else.
> 
> It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show
> 100% utilization in all active subsystems when performing
> non-interactive tasks like launching an application, for instance. Low
> CPU usage can be a symptom of poor disk caching.

No, I'd say that it's because Linux is a bit more efficient in its use of 
the processor.  I wouldn't expect to see 100% utilization unless I was 
actually running a highly intensive application like POV-Ray that 
actually needed the CPU.  Launching a program is kid's stuff - no reason 
for that to suck 100% of the CPU.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Aww... If it makes you feel any better, *my* desktop box has 256 MB RAM
>> and only one core. (AthlonXP 1700 I think...)
> 
> Work or home? The quad core I'm talking about is my home machine. The
> desktops at work aren't very impressive either

Oh, work, obviously. ;-)

At home, I have an Athlon64 X2 4200+ 2.2 GHz with 3 GB RAM. >:-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

In article <4886e09d@news.povray.org>, x### [at] ycom says...
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message
> 
> >until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that
> >fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor
> >utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on
> >a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
> >just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.
> 
> Are you saying Linux wastes 98 - 99% of the CPU? Typical 1-2% CPU
> utilization and a cap at 24% tells me that that particular system or Linu
x
> has a severe bottleneck somewhere else.
> 
> It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show 100
%
> utilization in all active subsystems when performing non-interactive task
s
> like launching an application, for instance. Low CPU usage can be a sympt
om
> of poor disk caching.
> 
No, that was 1% - 24% utilization when running the "basic" tasks that 
the average person does, like editing a document, or a spreedsheet. No 
way in hell I want my OS using 70%, let alone 100% of the CPU just to 
fracking edit a letter. ;)

-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> No, I'd say that it's because Linux is a bit more efficient in its use of
> the processor.  I wouldn't expect to see 100% utilization unless I was
> actually running a highly intensive application like POV-Ray that
> actually needed the CPU.  Launching a program is kid's stuff - no reason
> for that to suck 100% of the CPU.

Of course there is, if a certain amount of code needs to be executed by the 
CPU to "launch" the program, I want my OS to use 100% CPU until it's done. 
Whether that takes 0.01ms or 1 second, it should still use 100% CPU until 
it's done.  What on Earth is the reason not to?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:21:31 +0200, scott wrote:

>> No, I'd say that it's because Linux is a bit more efficient in its use
>> of the processor.  I wouldn't expect to see 100% utilization unless I
>> was actually running a highly intensive application like POV-Ray that
>> actually needed the CPU.  Launching a program is kid's stuff - no
>> reason for that to suck 100% of the CPU.
> 
> Of course there is, if a certain amount of code needs to be executed by
> the CPU to "launch" the program, I want my OS to use 100% CPU until it's
> done. Whether that takes 0.01ms or 1 second, it should still use 100%
> CPU until it's done.  What on Earth is the reason not to?

If that program takes 100% of the CPU, then *nothing* else gets any CPU - 
other applications, the OS, etc.  Those things need resources, too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If that program takes 100% of the CPU, then *nothing* else gets any CPU - 
> other applications, the OS, etc.  Those things need resources, too.

  That's not how pre-emptive multitasking works.

  You don't need "free CPU time" for task switching to work. It's not like
a program using 100% of CPU time would mean the OS has lost control.

  100% CPU time simply means that the OS is giving all the CPU time to
that process because nothing else needs the CPU. There's no need to keep
the CPU idle for no reason if only one process requests CPU time.

  CPUs support this thing called a clock interrupt. This means that at
certain intervals (the interval can be set up by the OS) a clock circuit
sends a signal to the CPU, which causes the CPU to stop whatever it was
doing and jump to a predefined location (which also can be set up by
the OS). This predefined location is usually the task manager of the OS.

  The task manager has a list of processes, categorized by their priority,
whether they are idle or not (there exist OS system calls which a process
can call to make itself idle) and other details.

  If only one process is non-idle, the task manager simply resumes the
execution of that process. The effective result of this is that that process
gets 100% of CPU time (well, more precisely something like 99.9999% because
the task manager takes that 0.0001% to check the list of processes).

  It's impossible for a process to block a pre-emptive OS completely.
When the clock signal interrupts the CPU, the CPU just stops executing
that process, period. There's no way around it. When that happens, the
OS is free to do whatever it wants. If another process has just started,
the OS can share CPU time with it, no problem. If they have equal priorities
and both are CPU-intensive, they will get 50% each.

  Some people really do seem to have some kind of confusion with this.
They believe that taking 100% of CPU time means that no CPU time is left
for the OS to perform task switching. This is just not how CPUs and
pre-emptive multitasking works. The OS is not hindered in any way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Of course there is, if a certain amount of code needs to be executed by
>> the CPU to "launch" the program, I want my OS to use 100% CPU until it's
>> done. Whether that takes 0.01ms or 1 second, it should still use 100%
>> CPU until it's done.  What on Earth is the reason not to?
>
> If that program takes 100% of the CPU, then *nothing* else gets any CPU -
> other applications, the OS, etc.  Those things need resources, too.

I meant the CPU being at 100% during the program loading, not that 
particular program using 100% all for itself.  Of course I assume the OS can 
do important things, but still the CPU should not be below 100% while I am 
waiting for a program to load (assuming it's CPU bound).  That would be just 
wasted time.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:20:54 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   That's not how pre-emptive multitasking works.

Yes, I am aware of how pre-emptive vs. non-preemptive multitasking 
works.  Been working with OSes for many, many years.

And that kinda is my point to Scott.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:21:35 +0200, scott wrote:

>>> Of course there is, if a certain amount of code needs to be executed
>>> by the CPU to "launch" the program, I want my OS to use 100% CPU until
>>> it's done. Whether that takes 0.01ms or 1 second, it should still use
>>> 100% CPU until it's done.  What on Earth is the reason not to?
>>
>> If that program takes 100% of the CPU, then *nothing* else gets any CPU
>> - other applications, the OS, etc.  Those things need resources, too.
> 
> I meant the CPU being at 100% during the program loading, not that
> particular program using 100% all for itself.  Of course I assume the OS
> can do important things, but still the CPU should not be below 100%
> while I am waiting for a program to load (assuming it's CPU bound). 
> That would be just wasted time.

Generally that isn't going to happen on modern processors, though, 
because the CPU hits 100% during computationally intensive periods, but 
internal clock speeds on CPUs these days tend to be *several times* the 
speed of even the bus to the CPU.

One of the reasons Intel entered the networking components market was 
because CPU utilization on their faster generations of processors was 
relatively low because of the speed differential between the time it took 
to process data and the time it took to get the data (or code, rather) to 
the processor to actually process things.

That may be what you're talking about here.  But this is why you won't 
see a CPU hit 100% during program load - the bus just isn't fast enough 
relative to the speed of the CPU.  Therefore, if you want to see 100% 
load on the CPU during a program load, you need a slower processor (until 
bus speeds catch up with CPU speeds, and that won't happen because of the 
physical distance the data has to travel on the bus to get to the CPU, 
where everything is nm apart instead of inches apart.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I meant the CPU being at 100% during the program loading, not that 
> particular program using 100% all for itself.  Of course I assume the OS can 
> do important things, but still the CPU should not be below 100% while I am 
> waiting for a program to load (assuming it's CPU bound).  That would be just 
> wasted time.

  Often when a program loads, it reads a lot of data from the disk. This
means that most programs are I/O-intensive during loading, not CPU-intensive.
(Basically the CPU has to constantly wait for the superslow hard disk to do
its job.)

  Some programs might perform some other forms of I/O during loading,
which may also cause the CPU to have to wait mostly idle. For example
a game could be loading tons of textures to the GPU memory, which takes
its time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:20:54 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   That's not how pre-emptive multitasking works.

> Yes, I am aware of how pre-emptive vs. non-preemptive multitasking 
> works.

  In fact, even in a cooperative multitasking system a process taking
100% of CPU time doesn't necessarily mean the system is locked into
that single process. The process may still be nicely sharing time, but
if it's the only CPU-intensive process running, it may be getting all
of the available CPU time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:45:16 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:20:54 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   That's not how pre-emptive multitasking works.
> 
>> Yes, I am aware of how pre-emptive vs. non-preemptive multitasking
>> works.
> 
>   In fact, even in a cooperative multitasking system a process taking
> 100% of CPU time doesn't necessarily mean the system is locked into that
> single process. The process may still be nicely sharing time, but if
> it's the only CPU-intensive process running, it may be getting all of
> the available CPU time.

Yep, absolutely - utilization figures are typically trended, and there 
usually is more than one process in the "task queue", even when something 
tries to take over the system entirely.  Interrupts and whatnot being in 
place means there's always something else that can take control unless 
the program has the ability (at the kernel level) to truly take 
everything over.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Generally that isn't going to happen on modern processors, though,
> because the CPU hits 100% during computationally intensive periods,

Yeh that's what I meant, like if the CPU had to decompress some files during 
loading (eg game graphics or whatever), assuming it is CPU-bound then of 
course I want the CPU usage to be at 100%.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:02:08 +0200, scott wrote:

>> Generally that isn't going to happen on modern processors, though,
>> because the CPU hits 100% during computationally intensive periods,
> 
> Yeh that's what I meant, like if the CPU had to decompress some files
> during loading (eg game graphics or whatever), assuming it is CPU-bound
> then of course I want the CPU usage to be at 100%.

That's a big assumption, though, and not generally the way things work.  
And even then, you're assuming that the speed of the CPU core = the speed 
of the bus to the memory, and that just isn't happening on modern systems 
any more.

Jim

Post a reply to this message