[pkuczaj]

One last question on this topic. Are you running the dual processor in Windows or Linux? I find that Linux is far superious in utilizing the dual processors over Windows. I use both in my environment, and I find that alot of Windows application have difficulty or is impossible to fully utilize the second processor.

Originally Posted by SamirDarji

The dual processors won't do as much as you think. I was running vb at work as a knowledgebase on a dual xeon and I'd watch as only one cpu would be used at a time. It was really retarded. A friend of mine did some masters research in this area and discovered that the best case improvement that dual processors can make is 50%. I initially liked the idea of dual processors when they first came to the desktop, but after doing the research, it's usually not worth it. Besides, if you're already to the limit on your current box, I don't know if a mere 50%-75% improvement could sustain you for too long. And considering the investment, it's probably not too good bang for buck if it only buys a short time before the next upgrade.

3Com and Intel make some good server nics that are specifically designed to be very low on cpu utilization. The HD upgrade from the 100g IDE to the 146g SCSI will be tremendous as far as data transfer is concerned, although I'd hesitate on the caching controller. Back in the day I did some study on caching vs non-caching and the software caches at the time showed that it was possible to achieve the same performance as a caching controller with just a regular controller and a software cache.

Umm....what was this thread originally talking about? I forgot