Re: Optimal degree of parallelism

"Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message news:1a75df45.0309030205.69796c7b_at_posting.google.com...

> Load balancing is usually done by the operating system - or should &
> must be done by the o/s IMO. The reason for me ranting against binding
> processes to a specific CPU (been there, done that and shot myself in
> the foot repeatedly until the shotgun was empty).

Too true. My last bad experience with the "features" was 8.0. It had a few "hiccups" until patched. The architect insisted we should bind CPU's to the big data load processes! That lasted about one trial...

> not. You take 25% of the purchasing cost and you buy yourself an AMD
> cluster... and I won't be surprised if that kicks L-class butt.

Yup, very much so. My little XP rocks! Nominally, 1.8GHz. But it kicks the **** out of the P4 2GHz at work. Big time.

> pretty darn well under the circumstances. That's the risk of using
> PC-like hardware as a server-type platform. It is not as mature IMO as
> the Unix server hardware. But this is changing.

I read somewhere AMD was getting together with some maker or other to produce server-class solid mobos?

> And technology advances like this puts a new meaning to something like
> grid computing. Methinks that Oracle recognised what oppertunities
> there are in the future and is gearing their core db product for it.

The problem is M$ is there too and with a darn good, cheap and palatable story for the CFO's pocket. It's gonna be an interesting one to watch.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam