[/img]Huh? thats bullcrap. The number of VM instances you can have isn't tied to how many physical cpu sockets you have. Thats what the V in VM stands for... Virtual.
Even on a single cpu system you could have 999 concurrent VMs each running their own VS2005 instance if you want. The performance would likely suck but you could do it.
Sounds like you just answered your own question. The perf would suck.
He didn't ask a question, he point out the idiocy when you said
I do dev work and use VMs. Having two sockets means twice as many VMs and VS 2005 instances. Some people need SLI, I need dual sockets.
Doubling the sockets does not double your VM instances.... you were unclear and, based on the statement above, incorrect.
So you're saying that more cores ISN'T EQUAL more perf for VMs? I assume then that you think little of what C2Q could do over Core 2 in terms of running VMs?
Nope, that his not what I am saying.... if you read your message it implies that you are wanting dual socket because it enables more VMs, you stated nothing about performance. You were called on this, you then corrected yourself, but your original message was misleading, as is most all of your posting.
please. What would I have meant? That two sockets causes heat blooms that enable RUNNING MORE SIMULTANEOUS VMs?
If you are testing a website you need multiple clients running at the same time against the server. In order to get "closer" to single client speed it helps to have either more cores or more faster cores.
The way Virtual Server works you can assign MAX %CPU to each VM. If you need to stay above 25% MAX then with a dual core that means 4 VMs(the OS needs a whole core), but with four cores you can have 12VMs running at 25% MAX.
Just like any APP VMs need adequate RAM, that's where Vista X64 comes in, I can run 2 servers at 1GB and 4 IE clients at 256MB. I hope they do decide to allow 2GB sticks in later revs because I really need 8GB but don't want to pay for 8GB ECC.
What you mean and what you said were two different things, there have been several cases where you have changed your tune once the actual information was explained to you.... for all I know you actually think 2 sockest does double the total number of VMs.
You said nothing about performance, the fella who called you on it did not ask a question, though you arrogantly assumed he did and arrogantly responded with crap as you always do.....
You know nothing about computing... why do you even try.
...and more to the point, his original assertion was that he needed multiple sockets because he runs VMs.
Hes' now trying to validate the argument by using misdirection into a discussion about multiple cores giving better performance which is a no-brainer.
My earlier point was about his understanding of sockets not cores.
Of course multple cores would help, but that doesn't mean you need 2 sockets as per his original statement. Assuming no clock/core-type differences, 1 quadcore cpu on a 1 socket mobo would be exactly the same (if not faster) than 2 dual core cpus on a dual-socket mobo.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram