Re: Larry Thong's Video Adventures!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eric Stevens, Dec 7, 2008.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 20:04:02 -0500, "Larry Thong"
    <> wrote:

    >It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system to something
    >with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though only a single proc
    >machine ...


    "Only a single proc machine"?

    Come on now!

    Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!


    > .... it should do some serious ass kicking!


    You betcha.

    >
    ><http://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/ci7.cfm>
    >
    >




    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 7, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:56:11 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 20:04:02 -0500, "Larry Thong"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system to something
    >>with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though only a single proc
    >>machine ...

    >
    >"Only a single proc machine"?
    >
    >Come on now!
    >
    >Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!
    >
    >
    >> .... it should do some serious ass kicking!

    >
    >You betcha.
    >
    >>
    >><http://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/ci7.cfm>
    >>
    >>


    Look at the top of the page to which your URL links. In the third line
    it says 'Intel(R) quad-core processors'.

    Then look at the specifications for the individual mother boards. On
    the top line it says 'Intel(R) CoreTM i7 Processors'. Now look at
    Wikipedia to find out exactly what is a Intel(R) CoreTM i7 Processor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3

    "Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel desktop x86-64 processors,
    the first processors released using the Intel Nehalem
    microarchitecture and the successor to the Intel Core 2 family. All
    three models are quad-core processors."

    The fact that they are all on a single chip in a single hole in the
    motherboard does not mean that your four processors are in any way
    diminished. Quite the reverse in fact as on-chip communications are
    always faster than data which has to wander around the labyrinth of
    motherboard conductors.

    You have a power house there.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Stevens

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Larry Thong <> wrote:
    >Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >>> It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system to
    >>> something with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though only
    >>> a single proc machine ...

    >>
    >> "Only a single proc machine"?
    >>
    >> Come on now!
    >>
    >> Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!

    >
    >Nope, there's only one hole on the MB. Had there been two holes I'd fill
    >both of them. My dual Xeon box has two physical sockets filled and shows
    >four procs, but it is still considered a dual proc box.


    You're a classic example of somebody who knows a little but believes
    that he knows a lot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 7, 2008
    #3
  4. Eric Stevens

    J. Clarke Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Larry Thong <> wrote:
    >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>
    >>>> It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system
    >>>> to
    >>>> something with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though
    >>>> only a single proc machine ...
    >>>
    >>> "Only a single proc machine"?
    >>>
    >>> Come on now!
    >>>
    >>> Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!

    >>
    >> Nope, there's only one hole on the MB. Had there been two holes
    >> I'd
    >> fill both of them. My dual Xeon box has two physical sockets
    >> filled
    >> and shows four procs, but it is still considered a dual proc box.

    >
    > You're a classic example of somebody who knows a little but believes
    > that he knows a lot.


    Software that is licensed per processor often doesn't incur additonal
    fees for additional cores as long as they are on the same chip. Thus
    it's not the meaningless distinction that you seem to believe it to
    be.


    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:30:12 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    <> wrote:

    >Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> Larry Thong <> wrote:
    >>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> something with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though
    >>>>> only a single proc machine ...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Only a single proc machine"?
    >>>>
    >>>> Come on now!
    >>>>
    >>>> Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!
    >>>
    >>> Nope, there's only one hole on the MB. Had there been two holes
    >>> I'd
    >>> fill both of them. My dual Xeon box has two physical sockets
    >>> filled
    >>> and shows four procs, but it is still considered a dual proc box.

    >>
    >> You're a classic example of somebody who knows a little but believes
    >> that he knows a lot.

    >
    >Software that is licensed per processor often doesn't incur additonal
    >fees for additional cores as long as they are on the same chip. Thus
    >it's not the meaningless distinction that you seem to believe it to
    >be.
    >


    I've never heard of software licensed by the processor. Can you give
    me an example?



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 8, 2008
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:43:45 -0500, Larry the dipThong wrote:

    > The case is nice. I use the same one except for it being packed with U320
    > SCSI drives. I'm finally going to be rubbing elbows with mere mortals as
    > this will be my first SATA system. I thought I'd never do it. Thank god I
    > still can do SAS. SATA, I must be getting old and senile?


    And feeble. Before you know it you'll be back to eBay looking for
    a clean D70 to mount an 18-200mm VR again. The bad news is it'll
    lower your Bragging Index. The good news is you'll be able to lift
    it, and the snapshots you take with it will be just as good as
    anything you've ever shot using your fabulously expensive and heavy
    Nikon and Canon gear, and you can sell your pack mule on eBay.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 8, 2008
    #6
  7. Eric Stevens

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Dec 7, 9:43 pm, "Larry Thong" <> wrote:
    >
    > The case is nice.  I use the same one except for it being packed with U320
    > SCSI drives.  I'm finally going to be rubbing elbows with mere mortals as
    > this will be my first SATA system.  I thought I'd never do it.  Thank god I
    > still can do SAS.  SATA, I must be getting old and senile?


    Don't keep us in suspense any longer!
    Which operating system will you be using?
    Gotta be 64-bit, I'm thinking.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 8, 2008
    #7
  8. Eric Stevens

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:30:12 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Ray Fischer wrote:
    >>> Larry Thong <> wrote:
    >>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system
    >>>>>> to
    >>>>>> something with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though
    >>>>>> only a single proc machine ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Only a single proc machine"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Come on now!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!
    >>>>
    >>>> Nope, there's only one hole on the MB. Had there been two holes
    >>>> I'd
    >>>> fill both of them. My dual Xeon box has two physical sockets
    >>>> filled
    >>>> and shows four procs, but it is still considered a dual proc box.
    >>>
    >>> You're a classic example of somebody who knows a little but believes
    >>> that he knows a lot.

    >>
    >>Software that is licensed per processor often doesn't incur additonal
    >>fees for additional cores as long as they are on the same chip. Thus
    >>it's not the meaningless distinction that you seem to believe it to
    >>be.

    >
    >I've never heard of software licensed by the processor. Can you give
    >me an example?


    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/15/oracle_core_pricing/

    Get your calculators out. Oracle has responded to the arrival of high
    volume multicore chips by introducing a new pricing model, and it's a
    comedy of fractions.

    Oracle's lucrative franchise has been based on per-CPU pricing, and
    the company has so far pretended to ignore the massive changes taking
    place in the processor industry. Unix vendors have sold dual-core
    processors for some time, and now AMD has joined the party, with Intel
    to follow. Two cores don't spell twice the performance, but they do
    deliver enough of a performance boost to muck up per processor
    licensing models.

    Now Oracle has acknowledged that multicore processors do exist.

    "For the purposes of counting the number of processors that require
    licensing, the number of cores in a multi-core chip now shall be
    multiplied by a factor of .75," Oracle said. "Previously, each core
    was counted as a full processor."

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 8, 2008
    #8
  9. Eric Stevens

    Ray Fischer Guest

    J. Clarke <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> Larry Thong <> wrote:
    >>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> something with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though
    >>>>> only a single proc machine ...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Only a single proc machine"?
    >>>>
    >>>> Come on now!
    >>>>
    >>>> Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!
    >>>
    >>> Nope, there's only one hole on the MB. Had there been two holes
    >>> I'd
    >>> fill both of them. My dual Xeon box has two physical sockets
    >>> filled
    >>> and shows four procs, but it is still considered a dual proc box.

    >>
    >> You're a classic example of somebody who knows a little but believes
    >> that he knows a lot.

    >
    >Software that is licensed per processor often doesn't incur additonal
    >fees for additional cores as long as they are on the same chip.


    It often does incur additional fees.

    > Thus
    >it's not the meaningless distinction that you seem to believe it to
    >be.


    Did you read something that I didn't write?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 8, 2008
    #9
  10. Eric Stevens

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Larry Thong <> wrote:
    >Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >>>> It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system to
    >>>> something with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though
    >>>> only a single proc machine ...
    >>>
    >>> "Only a single proc machine"?
    >>>
    >>> Come on now!
    >>>
    >>> Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> .... it should do some serious ass kicking!
    >>>
    >>> You betcha.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/ci7.cfm>
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >>
    >> Look at the top of the page to which your URL links. In the third line
    >> it says 'Intel(R) quad-core processors'.

    >
    >Yep.
    >
    >> Then look at the specifications for the individual mother boards. On
    >> the top line it says 'Intel(R) CoreTM i7 Processors'. Now look at
    >> Wikipedia to find out exactly what is a Intel(R) CoreTM i7 Processor.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3
    >>
    >> "Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel desktop x86-64 processors,
    >> the first processors released using the Intel Nehalem
    >> microarchitecture and the successor to the Intel Core 2 family. All
    >> three models are quad-core processors."
    >>
    >> The fact that they are all on a single chip in a single hole in the
    >> motherboard does not mean that your four processors are in any way
    >> diminished. Quite the reverse in fact as on-chip communications are
    >> always faster than data which has to wander around the labyrinth of
    >> motherboard conductors.

    >
    >Electrically you are right, but again, I'm talking about two physical
    >sockets as I now have on my dual Xeon MB. It doesn't matter how many core I
    >have since I still have two physical procs. When I boot up it doesn't
    >matter if I see four or eight penguins since there's only two procs.


    But you're wrong. The number of sockets does not determine the number
    of processors. It determines the number of, well, not much of anything.
    It is common to put multiple CPUs on the same chip.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 8, 2008
    #10
  11. Eric Stevens

    J. Clarke Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Larry Thong <> wrote:
    >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> It seems inevitable, having to upgrade the old dual Xeon system
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> something with a little more horsepower under the hood. Though
    >>>>> only a single proc machine ...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Only a single proc machine"?
    >>>>
    >>>> Come on now!
    >>>>
    >>>> Its a quad-core (i.e. four processor machine)!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> .... it should do some serious ass kicking!
    >>>>
    >>>> You betcha.
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/ci7.cfm>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>> Look at the top of the page to which your URL links. In the third
    >>> line it says 'Intel(R) quad-core processors'.

    >>
    >> Yep.
    >>
    >>> Then look at the specifications for the individual mother boards.
    >>> On
    >>> the top line it says 'Intel(R) CoreTM i7 Processors'. Now look at
    >>> Wikipedia to find out exactly what is a Intel(R) CoreTM i7
    >>> Processor.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3
    >>>
    >>> "Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel desktop x86-64
    >>> processors, the first processors released using the Intel
    >>> Nehalem
    >>> microarchitecture and the successor to the Intel Core 2 family.
    >>> All three models are quad-core processors."
    >>>
    >>> The fact that they are all on a single chip in a single hole in
    >>> the
    >>> motherboard does not mean that your four processors are in any way
    >>> diminished. Quite the reverse in fact as on-chip communications
    >>> are
    >>> always faster than data which has to wander around the labyrinth
    >>> of
    >>> motherboard conductors.

    >>
    >> Electrically you are right, but again, I'm talking about two
    >> physical
    >> sockets as I now have on my dual Xeon MB. It doesn't matter how
    >> many core I have since I still have two physical procs. When I
    >> boot
    >> up it doesn't matter if I see four or eight penguins since there's
    >> only two procs.

    >
    > But you're wrong. The number of sockets does not determine the
    > number
    > of processors. It determines the number of, well, not much of
    > anything. It is common to put multiple CPUs on the same chip.


    Microsoft defines "processor" differently from "core". If it fits in
    a socket it's a processor, no matter how many cores it has. Windows
    XP supports at most two processors but it will support as many cores
    as you can fit on those two processors.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 8, 2008
    #11
  12. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:44:16 -0500, "Larry Thong"
    <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >>> Software that is licensed per processor often doesn't incur additonal
    >>> fees for additional cores as long as they are on the same chip. Thus
    >>> it's not the meaningless distinction that you seem to believe it to
    >>> be.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I've never heard of software licensed by the processor. Can you give
    >> me an example?

    >
    >It's more noticeable when you're using enterprise based installations such
    >as clustering. Microsoft and a few others would love to charge four
    >licenses per chip. It's that physical thing again.
    >

    My understanding is that they charge on a per seat basis. I've never
    heard of a per processor. In fact Windows (for example) software has
    for many years been built to detect whether it is running on a single
    or dual processor machine. It makes no difference to the license.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 8, 2008
    #12
  13. Eric Stevens

    Noons Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 8/12/2008 8:09 PM:
    > On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:44:16 -0500, "Larry Thong"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Software that is licensed per processor often doesn't incur additonal
    >>>> fees for additional cores as long as they are on the same chip. Thus
    >>>> it's not the meaningless distinction that you seem to believe it to
    >>>> be.
    >>>>
    >>> I've never heard of software licensed by the processor. Can you give
    >>> me an example?

    >> It's more noticeable when you're using enterprise based installations such
    >> as clustering. Microsoft and a few others would love to charge four
    >> licenses per chip. It's that physical thing again.
    >>

    > My understanding is that they charge on a per seat basis. I've never
    > heard of a per processor. In fact Windows (for example) software has
    > for many years been built to detect whether it is running on a single
    > or dual processor machine. It makes no difference to the license.


    For servers, Microslop charges by processor.
    IBM and Oracle charge per core.
    This is only for processor based licenses:
    user named (per seat) are different.
    Generally, if you run a server farm with
    thousands of users attached, you want a
    processor license as it is mucho cheaper.
     
    Noons, Dec 8, 2008
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:09:23 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

    > My understanding is that they charge on a per seat basis. I've never
    > heard of a per processor. In fact Windows (for example) software has
    > for many years been built to detect whether it is running on a single
    > or dual processor machine. It makes no difference to the license.


    That makes sense for user computers. Different rules are often
    applicable for servers. Microsoft's SQL Server is one :

    > SQL Server Multicore Licensing Policy
    >
    > Multicore processors, which consist of multiple processing execution
    > units or "cores" on one chip, promise to boost computing power,
    > allowing servers, workstations, and PCs to perform more functions
    > simultaneously. By the end of 2006, Intel expects more than 80 percent
    > of its server products to be shipping with multicore technology.
    > Because most server-side software is licensed "per processor," it has
    > caused confusion among some software vendors regarding whether to
    > charge their customers "per processor" or "per core."
    >
    > Microsoft has been driving thought leadership in this area by charging
    > the same amount per processor, regardless of how many cores are in the
    > processor.



    http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.aspx
     
    ASAAR, Dec 8, 2008
    #14
  15. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:22:25 +1100, Noons <>
    wrote:

    >Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 8/12/2008 8:09 PM:
    >> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:44:16 -0500, "Larry Thong"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Software that is licensed per processor often doesn't incur additonal
    >>>>> fees for additional cores as long as they are on the same chip. Thus
    >>>>> it's not the meaningless distinction that you seem to believe it to
    >>>>> be.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I've never heard of software licensed by the processor. Can you give
    >>>> me an example?
    >>> It's more noticeable when you're using enterprise based installations such
    >>> as clustering. Microsoft and a few others would love to charge four
    >>> licenses per chip. It's that physical thing again.
    >>>

    >> My understanding is that they charge on a per seat basis. I've never
    >> heard of a per processor. In fact Windows (for example) software has
    >> for many years been built to detect whether it is running on a single
    >> or dual processor machine. It makes no difference to the license.

    >
    >For servers, Microslop charges by processor.
    >IBM and Oracle charge per core.
    >This is only for processor based licenses:
    >user named (per seat) are different.
    >Generally, if you run a server farm with
    >thousands of users attached, you want a
    >processor license as it is mucho cheaper.


    I don't think many subscribers to rec.photo.digital will use banks of
    multi-core processors for their images. :)



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 8, 2008
    #15
  16. Eric Stevens

    Jurgen Guest

    Larry Thong wrote:
    > Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >> I don't think many subscribers to rec.photo.digital will use banks of
    >> multi-core processors for their images. :)

    >
    > But you need em to get that Usenet speed up to terminal velocity. 8-way
    > processing is the best way to view Usenet.


    In the words of an Administrative Services Purchasing officer:

    "No way in this world I'm going to buy a bunch of 386's just for 16 year
    old clerks to send messages back and forth to each other"

    IBM CEO's famous statement:
    "There might be a market for maybe 200 PCs worldwide".

    Bill Gates RE Windows: "The information highway" SPLAT!

    Me:
    "I just ordered a new computer for processing really big images really
    fast" http://www.apple.com/macpro/

    Bye, Bye PC, Hello Mac.
     
    Jurgen, Dec 8, 2008
    #16
  17. Eric Stevens

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Dec 8, 5:47 pm, Jurgen <> wrote:

    > "I just ordered a new computer for processing really big images really
    > fast"http://www.apple.com/macpro/
    >
    > Bye, Bye PC, Hello Mac.


    Be sure to get the 32GB memory upgrade for only an extra $9,100.

    All of a sudden the 5D2 looks cheap.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 9, 2008
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:38:55 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Wasn't it Steve Jobs who said: "No home computer user will ever need
    > more than 16k of memory."???


    I think it was Bill Gates that is reputed to have said something
    like that, referring the IBM PC's approx. 640kb (not 16kb) of usable
    memory. Others say that it's an urban myth.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 9, 2008
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Dec 8, 7:38 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    > Wasn't it Steve Jobs who said: "No home computer user will ever need
    > more than 16k of memory."???



    Maybe he meant 16 TB?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 9, 2008
    #19
  20. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:24:30 -0500, "Larry Thong"
    <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >> I don't think many subscribers to rec.photo.digital will use banks of
    >> multi-core processors for their images. :)

    >
    >But you need em to get that Usenet speed up to terminal velocity. 8-way
    >processing is the best way to view Usenet.


    Are you a spider?



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 9, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. robert

    lesure suit larry

    robert, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,179
    Governor Swill
    Feb 3, 2005
  2. Joan
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,744
    =?iso-8859-15?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=
    Apr 22, 2007
  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Getting Back No Nature In A Thong!!

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 15, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    322
    George Kerby
    Aug 16, 2007
  4. Atheist Chaplain

    Re: Larry Thong's Video Adventures!!

    Atheist Chaplain, Dec 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    316
    Atheist Chaplain
    Dec 7, 2008
  5. Hanz

    Re: Larry Thong's Video Adventures!!

    Hanz, Dec 12, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    365
    John McWilliams
    Dec 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page