Author: scott farrell
Date: 04:41:58 09/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2003 at 20:38:23, Russell Reagan wrote: I'll vouch for linux SMP being sub par. I think for compute intensive it is fine. For IO intensive it is lousy. For large memory it is lousy. So for chess, its probably OK, and more controllable than windows. The fact that CPU are cheaper (INTEL vs SUN) is why people like Robert like it better. I am sure nobody would knock back solaris on a SUN box with CPUs that match intel - if you disregard the price difference. >In a unix system administration class today, the professor said that the SMP >support in Linux isn't very good. He said it's okay if you're doing 2x or maybe >4x, but he said that anything higher than that and you should use something like >Solaris, and gave the impression that Solaris was a very solid choice for an SMP >machine. > >I was suprised that he said this, because (IIRC) Dr. Hyatt uses Redhat Linux, >and he doesn't seem to think very highly of Sun, and he obviously knows a >"little" about all things SMP ;-) > >I have a few questions in regards to how different operating systems compare in >terms of SMP support. > >Which operating systems are preferred? > >Which operating systems should be avoided? > >How is Windows? > >How is FreeBSD? I heard Gian-Carlo saying something about FreeBSD not having >good multithreaded support. > >If Linux has sub-par SMP support, will this be improved in kernel 2.6?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.