|
| Re: Hyperthreading |
 |
Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:14:37 +000 |
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:52:43 +1300, Ian Stephenson wrote:
> The next Intel chip has Hyperthreading set on as a default. One of my
> clients has had a stability problem running SB2 on a server with
> Hyperthreading. Is Hyperthreading supported in any of the SB versions?
>
> Regards, Ian
Ian,
is this chip a 64-bit CPU? If so, then hyperthreading on or off is
irrelevant, since SB 2.0 won't run on Win64 anyway. That is one of the
main reasons that we are working so hard to get SBNG completed.
|
| Post Reply
|
| Hyperthreading |
 |
Fri, 2 Dec 2005 22:52:43 +1300 |
The next Intel chip has Hyperthreading set on as a default. One of my
clients has had a stability problem running SB2 on a server with
Hyperthreading. Is Hyperthreading supported in any of the SB versions?
Regards, Ian
|
| Post Reply
|
| Re: Hyperthreading |
 |
Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:21:51 +000 |
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:14:37 +0000, Neil Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:52:43 +1300, Ian Stephenson wrote:
>
>> The next Intel chip has Hyperthreading set on as a default. One of my
>> clients has had a stability problem running SB2 on a server with
>> Hyperthreading. Is Hyperthreading supported in any of the SB versions?
>>
>> Regards, Ian
>
> Ian,
>
> is this chip a 64-bit CPU? If so, then hyperthreading on or off is
> irrelevant, since SB 2.0 won't run on Win64 anyway. That is one of the
> main reasons that we are working so hard to get SBNG completed.
>
> Ciao, Neil
I have done a bit more reading and it appears that hyperthreading doesn't
give all that great a performance boost depending on what you are running
on it, but turning it off can actually increase performance in many cases
and almost invariably improves stability. As such, you probably should
recommend to people to turn it off on machines that are actually running
your application. A desktop machine isn't going to significantly profit
from it anyway, though a server might.
|
| Post Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|