By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,486 Members | 2,124 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,486 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Dual processor

P: n/a
Not that I'm going to go out and buy a new motherboard, but, will a dual
processor PC run a huge report query and still allow a user to use other
programs while the query is running?

--
Darryl Kerkeslager
Jan 22 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
8 Replies


P: n/a
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:57:15 -0500, "Darryl Kerkeslager"
<ke*********@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes.
But so does a single CPU.
That is, if the software manufacturer used best practices.

Windows uses "cooperative multi-tasking", which means that if you
really want to, you can grab the CPU (or (perhaps even more likely)
some other resource) and hang on to it 'forever' and get your thing
done in the shortest amount of time while disallowing other apps to
run normally.
It also means that well-behaved applications have every opportunity to
yield the use of resources to other players, and if the market place
paid more attention to these traits, then they would dominate the
desktop by now.

In my experience dual-CPU doesn't solve a lot of problems.

-Tom.
Not that I'm going to go out and buy a new motherboard, but, will a dual
processor PC run a huge report query and still allow a user to use other
programs while the query is running?


Jan 23 '06 #2

P: n/a
Tom van Stiphout wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:57:15 -0500, "Darryl Kerkeslager"
<ke*********@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes.
But so does a single CPU.
That is, if the software manufacturer used best practices.
Windows 95 added preemptive multi-tasking capability, and software has
not been required to be written a special way to share CPU time with
other applications since that time. In Windows NT and 2000 and above,
it is not even possible for an application to hog 100% of CPU time on
purpose.
Windows uses "cooperative multi-tasking", which means that if you
really want to, you can grab the CPU (or (perhaps even more likely)
some other resource) and hang on to it 'forever' and get your thing
done in the shortest amount of time while disallowing other apps to
run normally.


Not since Windows 3.1.
Jan 23 '06 #3

P: n/a
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:49:49 -0800, Steve Jorgensen
<no****@nospam.nospam> wrote:

The way you write it, it seems the OP couldn't have seen what he did:
he runs a large report query and during that time cannot use his
computer for other tasks.

Looks like even today the OS needs the applications' cooperation to
remain responsive, regardless of the multi-tasking method.

-Tom.

Tom van Stiphout wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:57:15 -0500, "Darryl Kerkeslager"
<ke*********@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes.
But so does a single CPU.
That is, if the software manufacturer used best practices.


Windows 95 added preemptive multi-tasking capability, and software has
not been required to be written a special way to share CPU time with
other applications since that time. In Windows NT and 2000 and above,
it is not even possible for an application to hog 100% of CPU time on
purpose.
Windows uses "cooperative multi-tasking", which means that if you
really want to, you can grab the CPU (or (perhaps even more likely)
some other resource) and hang on to it 'forever' and get your thing
done in the shortest amount of time while disallowing other apps to
run normally.


Not since Windows 3.1.


Jan 23 '06 #4

P: n/a
User applications are normally written to take
high priority. If you have two user applications
running, they will each run half as fast, which
is a massive slowdown.

System processes are normally written to take
low priority, which works well for small user
applications, but is poor when doing massive
long-running foreground processes.

That is, if the software manufacturer used best practices.


It is not best practice to write foreground applications with low priority.

In a perfect world, computers would be infinitely powerful and infinitely
adaptive.

In the real world, software designers have to compromise between conflicting
requirements.

(david)

"Tom van Stiphout" <no*************@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7h********************************@4ax.com... On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:49:49 -0800, Steve Jorgensen
<no****@nospam.nospam> wrote:

The way you write it, it seems the OP couldn't have seen what he did:
he runs a large report query and during that time cannot use his
computer for other tasks.

Looks like even today the OS needs the applications' cooperation to
remain responsive, regardless of the multi-tasking method.

-Tom.

Tom van Stiphout wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:57:15 -0500, "Darryl Kerkeslager"
<ke*********@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes.
But so does a single CPU.
That is, if the software manufacturer used best practices.


Windows 95 added preemptive multi-tasking capability, and software has
not been required to be written a special way to share CPU time with
other applications since that time. In Windows NT and 2000 and above,
it is not even possible for an application to hog 100% of CPU time on
purpose.
Windows uses "cooperative multi-tasking", which means that if you
really want to, you can grab the CPU (or (perhaps even more likely)
some other resource) and hang on to it 'forever' and get your thing
done in the shortest amount of time while disallowing other apps to
run normally.


Not since Windows 3.1.

Jan 23 '06 #5

P: n/a
Please try it and tell us :~)

If you have one processor doing joins, and
the other handling disk access, and you have
used up all of your memory, then I guess
any other programs are still going to run
slow.

So if Access/Jet is well optimised for dual
processors, then other programs will be slow.

But if Access/Jet is deliberately throttled
to one processor, then other programs may
run well!

(david)
"Darryl Kerkeslager" <ke*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pd********************@comcast.com...
Not that I'm going to go out and buy a new motherboard, but, will a dual
processor PC run a huge report query and still allow a user to use other
programs while the query is running?

--
Darryl Kerkeslager

Jan 23 '06 #6

P: n/a
"Tom van Stiphout" <no*************@cox.net> wrote
The way you write it, it seems the OP couldn't have seen what he did:
he runs a large report query and during that time cannot use his
computer for other tasks.


"Cannot use" may not be what I meant to write - more like the slowdown is
abominable. This is mainly an issue with the work computer, XPPro,
switching between the query running (v. large and run over WAN) and Word,
Outlook, Excel.

Perhaps the issue is memory or the network. When I run the report over my
LAN at home, it runs so fast that I don't notice any problem.

--
Darryl Kerkeslager
Jan 24 '06 #7

P: n/a
"david epsom dot com dot au" <david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote
Please try it and tell us :~)


Just put the new motherboard in the mail to me, please ...
--
Darryl Kerkeslager
Jan 24 '06 #8

P: n/a
"david epsom dot com dot au" <david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote
So if Access/Jet is well optimised for dual
processors, then other programs will be slow.

But if Access/Jet is deliberately throttled
to one processor, then other programs may
run well!


All programs are MS Office programs, so I guess that all (other than
Outlook) are built similarly.
--
Darryl Kerkeslager
Jan 24 '06 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.