Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Esteban who wrote (17934)	3/23/2001 4:25:46 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110652

Dual processors… I cannot find my earlier post where I discussed multiple processors. Sad too, because I think I covered the topic thoroughly. It was most likely on Computer Learning or Dream Machine. If anyone finds it, and it doesn’t make what I say here look too silly, please post the link. Enhancing system performance is a process of eliminating bottlenecks. When CPU speeds reach certain levels, faster memory is required. Quick silicon soon reveals disk tardiness. The moving finger of progress must eventually point at Video, Sound, and Network sub-systems too. The overall performance cannot exceed the capabilities of the slowest link. When CPU performance becomes the ‘impediment-de-jour’ two solutions look promising: Multiple CPUs, or a faster single CPU. Multiple processors enhance performance in two different ways: Simultaneous processing and lower task switching latency. Obviously, two processors can perform double the work of one, and many can outperform a few. However, can the system keep them busy? Not all tasks can be divided among processors. Think of a car assembly line. Engines and transmissions can be assembled simultaneously (I think) on separate sub-assembly lines using two crews faster than using one crew on one line. The key is the independence of each crew and line. Computer processors don’t enjoy this independence because they must share system I/O, memory, and instructions. To benefit from additional processors, the system must be able to divide the work equitably, and this is far more difficult than it first appears. Many operating system and applications cannot exploit multiple processors, and disregard all but one. Those supporting additional processors must still assign overall system management to one. We can appreciate that under some circumstances the combination additional systems duties and inability to share the load with secondary processors will result in a deterioration of overall performance. When operating systems support multiple tasks, those tasks do not run simultaneously, but rather they switch from one to another very fast. Switching takes time as old data is saved and new data loaded. Using multiple processors can reduce this lost time because they can remain ‘ready to run’ when it’s their turn again. This saving is of more value in theory than in practice because today’s processors are so fast, and the issue can be disregarded. I feel that few systems and even fewer applications require, or can even benefit from multiple processors. Unless I was running an application requiring or recommending additional processors, I’d use a single processor. A faster processor will complete its work in less time. In a computer, the work is constant and the time varies, unlike people who usually work a fixed time and what they accomplish varies. The chief difference being that a human, if motivated, can perform additional work if given spare time, whereas a computer processor will sit idle. This idleness is a waste of processor potential, and we can appreciate that dollars spent on a faster processor, only to have that processor complete its work and enter an idle state earlier are dollars wasted. Contrast this with a system where everything waits for a slow CPU: Any increase in CPU speed will translate into an improvement in overall system performance. Windows provides System Monitor to help you determine what’s happening. You can choose to watch a variety of indicators while you do your usual work, and learn which parts of your system are overworked. If you find that your CPU is busy 30% of the time, you may feel that a faster CPU busy for 15% of the time may not help. CPU use at 100% coupled with other values indicating idleness could be evidence of inadequate processor power. I hope this helps. Cheers, PW. P.S. I use a single CPU laptop.