Are dual processor machines necessary ?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by spreadem, Apr 13, 2003.

  1. nitro


    So you are saying that the fastest time was on WinXP on machines that are relatively equivalent?

    This sort of test can be very deceiving. For example, at what time did you run the tests? This can be important because, for example, a scheduled backup can take place that you were not aware, or even the operating system runs scheduled events at certain times, e.g., FastFind.

    My point is, it is easy to get "bad" results unless you are being REALLY carefull in your analysis and have an understanding what load the computer may be under when you are doing a caculation.

    Still, your numbers look off by more than they "should"...

    #91     Apr 28, 2003
  2. SFINC


    All of you say is very interesing.
    Simple test, simple result, I aren't going to dissertate.
    I hope if Man has 2CPU, this is no problem.
    #92     Apr 28, 2003
  3. Investing in a dual processor system is more than an investment in processor speed. It represents the determination to have a system which will operate at or near its peak efficiency for a long time.

    Regardless of the processor speed, many programs can hog a large percentage of the CPU's resources and will cause the computer system to be sluggish and make multi-tasking a chore.

    With a multi-processor system and an SMP-compatible OS, like Win Nt, Win 2000, and Win XP pro, standard applications can run concurrently with much less degradation in performance. Even if the applications themselves are not SMP-optimized, the operating system will multi-thread the programs themselves and distribute the tasks to each of the CPUs.

    This is a less measurable kind of performance gain, but it may have greater real-world benefits than simply using pure benchmark speed as the indicator. Thus the system will operate at its peak efficiency while multiple applications are operating.

    This is great news when a trader is running realtime analysis software with many charts opening and running even during the busiest, most hectic market activity. :cool:
    #93     Apr 28, 2003
  4. oh geee sys....

    YOU ARE THE KING OF BULLSH*T!!!!!!!!! (say hello to nitro, ) :-/
    #94     Apr 28, 2003
  5. nitro


    If for no other reason, a second CPU adds a layer of fault tolerance. To me, the extra cost involved if it did nothing else would be worth it.

    #95     Apr 28, 2003
  6. well which is it ..crunching a million symbols/sec or "fault tolerance" (nice made up word ;-/)

    p[s i think you need QUAD Xeon PROC dude! ROCK MY WORLD!!!! if we're talkin FALT TOLERANCE here (and you know we are :B) whats another few hundred to a big trader like you!!!! (pocket change!)ps .your "dual zz fault tolerate 'puter" crashes twice a day dude!! i am a witness (you deny it??):eek:

    #96     Apr 28, 2003
  7. Both ...
    #97     Apr 30, 2003
  8. ler


    What is the upgrade process like for moving to dual processors on Win2K? Is it simply drop in the second processor and go?

    I remember NT upgrading to be a pain as the switch to the multiprocessor kernel after service packs had been applied could turn out to be disastrous.
    #98     May 28, 2003
  9. CalTrader

    CalTrader Guest

    You must upgrade the kernel - and reapply service packs.

    We have done this and for our systems it worked without incident.

    Instructions on this are readily available in the setup instructions and in the microsoft knowledge base .....
    #99     May 28, 2003
  10. I upgraded a P2-400 win NT system to a dual processor win NT system. The processes went without a hiccup. Re-installed the service packs and she hummed along. Windows 2000 shouldn't be a problem, either.
    #100     May 28, 2003