Patai Sangbutsarakum 2012-10-11, 16:22
Jay Vyas 2012-10-11, 17:46
Russell Jurney 2012-10-11, 17:56
Ted Dunning 2012-10-11, 18:38
Russell Jurney 2012-10-11, 19:03
-Re: Why they recommend this (CPU) ?
Patrick Angeles 2012-10-11, 19:36
If you look at comparable Intel parts:
6 cores @ 2.5 Ghz
95W - $885
8 cores @ 2.0 Ghz
95W - $1107
So, for $400 more on a dual proc system -- which really isn't much -- you
get 2 more cores for a 20% drop in speed. I can believe that for some
scenarios, the faster cores would fare better. Gzip compression is one that
comes to mind, where you are aggressively trading CPU for lower storage
volume and IO. An HBase cluster is another example.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Russell Jurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> My own clusters are too temporary and virtual for me to notice. I haven't
> thought of clock speed as having mattered in a long time, so I'm curious
> what kind of use cases might benefit from faster cores. Is there a category
> in some way where this sweet spot for faster cores occurs?
> Russell Jurney http://datasyndrome.com
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should measure your workload. Your experience will vary dramatically
> with different computations.
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Russell Jurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>> Anyone got data on this? This is interesting, and somewhat
>> Russell Jurney http://datasyndrome.com
>> On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Jay Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Presumably, if you have a reasonable number of cores - speeding the
>> cores up will be better than forking a task into smaller and smaller chunks
>> - because at some point the overhead of multiple processes would be a
>> bottleneck - maybe due to streaming reads and writes? I'm sure each and
>> every problem has a different sweet spot.
Goldstone, Robin J. 2012-10-11, 19:47
Ted Dunning 2012-10-11, 19:56
Steve Loughran 2012-10-12, 08:19
Russell Jurney 2012-10-13, 07:22
Aaron Eng 2012-10-11, 19:15