Re: Quick question.

["Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>]

I am sorry, but I do not  make a theory - I just repors practical results. 2
CPU systems are much more stable than 1 CPU system, in my experience. You
are free to find an explanatiion, if you want -:).



> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Paul G wrote:
>
> > the second cpu buys you time - it is unlikely you're going to be
> > able to react in time on a busy single cpu box with a runaway
> > process (it launches into a death sprial almost immediately), but
> > you would usually have 10-15 mins on a dual cpu box at a minimum or
> > maybe infinity if you enforce cpu affinity for apps that tend to
> > misbehave.
>
> Why do you have 10-15 mins? If the application is multi-threaded and
> has a reasonable workload, there are plenty of types of bugs that
> will result in one spinning thread after the other, you need far
> more than just 2 CPUs! Or maybe your application vendor has "at least
> 10minutes between hitting bugs!" on it's feature list? ;)
>
> Really, what you to need do is (in the face of such buggy apps) is to
> set per-task CPU time resource limits appropriate to how much
> cpu-time a task needs and how much you can afford - be it a 1, 2 or n
> CPU system.
>
> > paul
>
> regards,
> -- 
> Paul Jakma paul () clubi ie paul () jakma org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> Fortune:
> I came to MIT to get an education for myself and a diploma for my mother.