General information
Category:
Computing in general
SNIP
>
>I nowadays think the message you reminded of was either a VERY freak special situation
>or a measurement error including other OS-processes - perhaps virus scan or a SQL server.
I didn't get the impression that CPU measurement was carefully done under either circumstance, but think it fair to assume it was done consistently in both cases.
It no doubt was a "special" situation, but I don't think that is too relevant to the conclusion offered - their application ran appreciably faster and their CPU measurements showed that both CPUs were in use. I understood theirs was a production application running on dedicated hardware with known application response times.
My take is that anything, and especially VFP, is always **very** difficult to benchmark with today's OSs and hardware features and even more so with multi-processing going on.
- How does one hit a system hard enough with few workstations?
- How does a partitioned HD differ from separate physical HDs?
- How does just the placement of files (and their extents) on different attempts affect the performance?... as the application progresses?
- How will you even know if a spot used on one HD is a re-assigned track sitting far away on an HD?
- How do potentially varying settings for disk write cache affect things?
- How does OS caching affect things?... and is it consisteny at each workstation?
- How does VFP caching affect things?
Windows affords very little control for many factors so it can be a crap-shoot, as I see it. It's one thing to have a problem and set about to solve/improve it, but quite another consistently benchmark anything.
cheers
>
>For taxing workstation work WITH a human user hacking at the machine I recommend
>nowadays non-HT double cores, for pure vfp-batch-processing machines WITHOUT
>human keyboard banging I recommend single cores, as the second CPU is underutilized.
>
>Server machines are definitely to be measured by other yardsticks <bg>.
>
>My 0.03 EUR (a tiny bit more than usual <g>)
>
>thomas
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only