search for: e5540

Dear All, I am considering to buy a workstation. For the CPUs, I wonder whether anybody have the experience in choosing one for the R. Intel Xeon W3540 2.93 8MB/1066 QC CPU is much cheaper as compared with the Intel Xeon E5540 2.53 8MB/1066 QC CPU. However, its Hz 2.93 is bigger than 2.53. I wonder which one would run R quicker. Thank you. Huang [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, We are using LLVM 2.9 (with the llvm-gcc front end) to compile and run the SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks on x86. We are compiling and running the benchmarks on a an Intel Xeon E5540 processor running Ubuntu 10.10 (64-bit version). For the native x86-64 target, we are using the following command-line arguments: -O3 -march=core2 -mtune=core2 and are getting compile-time errors on the gamess and tonto benchmarks. For the native x86-32 target, we are using the following command-...

My system is a dual Xeon E5540 (Nehalem) HP Proliant DL380G6. When switching between Xen 4.0.2-rc1-pre and Xen 4.1-unstable I noticed that the NUMA info as shown by the Xen ''u'' debug-key is different. More specifically, the CPU to node mapping is alternating for 4.0.2 and grouped sequentially for 4.1. This diff...

Our test machine has two Intel Xeon E5540 processors running at 2.53 GHz with 24 GB of memory. Each CPU has 8 threads (16 threads in total). All our tests, however, were single threaded. Which result is particularly surprising for you? The low impact of the MI scheduler, the relatively good performance of the source scheduler or the relati...

Let me describe more precisely what I am doing and why the results I got may help improve LLVM's performance on modern x86-64 processors regardless of the front end (GCC, Clang or DragonEgg). I am running ALL my tests on an Intel Xeon E5540 processor, which is an x86-64 Nehalem processor. The OS is a 64-bit version of Ubuntu. So, I am running all my tests on the same x86-64 machine and am only experimenting with compiler options. What I meant by running in x86-32 mode is simply using the -m32 option (passed through the llvm-gcc front...

...n_shobaki at yahoo.com > wrote: > Let me describe more precisely what I am doing and why the results I got > may help improve LLVM's performance on modern x86-64 processors regardless > of the front end (GCC, Clang or DragonEgg). > > I am running ALL my tests on an Intel Xeon E5540 processor, which is an > x86-64 Nehalem processor. The OS is a 64-bit version of Ubuntu. So, I am > running all my tests on the same x86-64 machine and am only experimenting > with compiler options. What I meant by running in x86-32 mode is simply > using the -m32 option (passed through...

I have several systems running 64bit SLES11SP1. I''m trying to Live Migrate between a couple of them and it''s not working, although the same VM will run on each one starting it manually. The system are not identical. Would one expect migration to work between these two systems? See below. Thanks, James The first system is a ProLiant DL360 G6: Proc 1:2533 MHz Execution

Which options are you seeing that cause the largest difference, and on which targets? As Chandler mentioned there has been a large amount of variation in x86 targets, and there are certain optimizations that can be done, on say a Pentium (scheduling instructions which are pairable and non-dependent so the U and V pipelines are saturated without contention, for example) that don't make sense

I need some help here with getting this thing running. Every time I enable NUT on the server, I get a "on battery" status when I know that it is running on house power. This only occurs when I am monitoring it with FreeBSD(NAS4Free) When i plug the same UPS into CentOS 6.7, It works as expected. I am not sure what the difference between the NUT versions other than the base OS would be.

...e processor is a x5650. other than that. they are the same. Version 10.2.0.2 - Prester (revision 1814) Build date Sun Aug 30 21:05:02 CEST 2015 Platform OS FreeBSD Revision: 199506 FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE-p2 #0 r287260M: Fri Aug 28 18:38:18 CEST 2015 Platform x64-embedded on Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5540 @ 2.53GHz System Supermicro X8DTH > >> When i plug the same UPS into CentOS 6.7, It works as expected. I am not sure what the difference between the NUT versions other than the base OS would be. Both are running Version 2.7.3. Thank you in advance. > >> FreeBSD output: >...

I have been doing some benchmarking on x86 using llvm 2.9 with the llvm-gcc 4.2 front end. I noticed that the -march and -mtune options make a significant positive difference in x86-32 mode but hardly make any difference in x86-64 mode. The small difference that I am measuring when the target is x86-64 could easily be random variation, while for the x86-32 target I am measuring a huge difference

On 17.09.2013, at 20:04, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > We have done some experimental evaluation of the different schedulers in LLVM 3.3 (source, BURR, ILP, fast, MI). The evaluation was done on x86-64 using SPEC CPU2006. We have measured both the amount of spill code as well as the execution time as detailed below. > > Here are our

...amba DC VM are Gentoo-based. Domain DNS name is klin.kifato-mk.com. 2k3 DC is dc1.klin.kifato-mk.com. Samba VM is dc0.klin.kifato-mk.com. dc0 samba # hostname -f dc0.klin.kifato-mk.com dc0 samba # uname -a Linux dc0 3.5.1-genericvm-r1 #1 SMP Mon Aug 13 10:24:07 MSK 2012 x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5540 @ 2.53GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux dc0 samba # sbin/samba --version Version 4.0.0rc1 We join the Samba like this: dc0 samba # bin/samba-tool domain join klin.kifato-mk.com DC -UMK_KLIN\\ice_eng --realm=klin.kifato-mk.com --dns-backend=SAMBA_INTERNAL --option=bind\ interfaces\ only=yes --option=inter...

Hi Andy, We have done some experimental evaluation of the different schedulers in LLVM 3.3 (source, BURR, ILP, fast, MI). The evaluation was done on x86-64 using SPEC CPU2006. We have measured both the amount of spill code as well as the execution time as detailed below. Here are our main findings: 1. The SD schedulers significantly impact the spill counts and the execution times for many

...nified-2-6-30-1-kernel-via-xen-patches-2-6-30-2-tar-bz2/ Regarding the patches used in the above procedure from here: http://code.google.com/p/gentoo-xen-kernel/downloads/list Are the .30 versions truly buggy, or are they usable? I need the .30 as I''m benchmarking Xen for an app on the i7 E5540 and want hyperthreading on these chips enabled. -Bruce _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users