Re: 1 CPU or 2 ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/06 14:18, dtutty@porchlight.ca wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:09:35PM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:15:53 -0700 "michael"
>> <michael@etalon.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:04:53 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote
>>>> On 10/14/06 19:53, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:33:29PM -0700, michael wrote:
[snip]
> Or, is there a secure way to virtualize the server like an LPAR
> for debian, in which case the more cores the better,
There's Xen. And VMware.
VMware has been around for years, and is a known, rock-solid
hypervisor.
> Either way, the more cores the better when the issue is
> throughput like a server rather than computation like a gaming
> machine.
And bandwidth. No use having lots of cores if they are starved for
data.
> Sometimes I wish someone would make a case that would take two
> MBs :-)
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFNs6tS9HxQb37XmcRAr/mAJ93NErvoDUzGG2pKa4Q+lKNz3amdQCgy/V3
hIIqwnmWkN/HfHMKHcqkxiQ=
=apE7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: