How Windows 2000 uses dual Processors?
Greetings everyone, I heard (or read) somewhere that Windows NT automatically utilizes BOTH processors in a dual-processor machines, by splitting the load between both processors in some way. Is this true? If so, does this mean that some program may be put (by windows 2000) to run on the second processor? Please re ...
Greetings everyone,
I heard (or read) somewhere that Windows NT automatically utilizes BOTH processors in a dual-processor machines, by splitting the load between both processors in some way. Is this true? If so, does this mean that some program may be put (by windows 2000) to run on the second processor? Please reply with all the juicy details!
I heard (or read) somewhere that Windows NT automatically utilizes BOTH processors in a dual-processor machines, by splitting the load between both processors in some way. Is this true? If so, does this mean that some program may be put (by windows 2000) to run on the second processor? Please reply with all the juicy details!
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
The advantage to dual CPU's is that you can run more things at the same time---smoothly---than on a single CPU. Some apps, like Photoshop and Quake 3, can use both CPU's, but not most. They have to be written to be able to use the 2nd CPU.
You can play a game and burn a perfect CD--using a drive w/o burnproof.
Win2k will use the 2nd CPU to help with the work load and keep the system running nice and smooth.
I got one duallie just for the hell of it, and bragging rights.
If your interested, go look at 2cpu and search the forums for more info (please look in through the forums before asking any questions over there--ppl ask the same questions quite a bit, and ppl get angry)
You can play a game and burn a perfect CD--using a drive w/o burnproof.
Win2k will use the 2nd CPU to help with the work load and keep the system running nice and smooth.
I got one duallie just for the hell of it, and bragging rights.
If your interested, go look at 2cpu and search the forums for more info (please look in through the forums before asking any questions over there--ppl ask the same questions quite a bit, and ppl get angry)
Well I have two PENTIUM PRO 200 MHZ proxessors (512KB cache). I have an 8x burner, but can't seem to burn at faster than 4x with no applications running. If applications are running I will be lucky to get by with 2x! Note that I have plenty of memory (256MB) and I usually burn with NOTHING ELSE running. I even close processes down using ctrl-alt-del in windows 2000!!! Help someone?
I have a feeling that your system may just not have the processing power to run that thing at top speed. Make sure you've enabled DMA--if you can--in BIOS and in Win2k for both your hard drive and CD burner.
The BIOS is old and only supports UDMA/33. However, I have enabled all DMA settings for all applicable drives under windows 2000. I also defrag all drives EVERY DAY, so it may be the processing power issue. The weird thing is i can run pretty much anything or any game on it smoothly, especially 3d-intensive games. I have yet to try Quake 3 if i can get my hand on it!!
Which games do you play, and at what res? HL is cool, but it's not intensive like today's standards.
I'm not sure who made your board, but that might be something you'll wanna know. Check and see if you can get a BIOS update for it.
Again, back to the CPUs' power, since a good chunk of apps aren't multithreaded, the 2nd CPU probably isn't doing much.
I thought of something else that may explain why you can't hit max speed: using the wrong media (I highly doubt that's it), using bad media, or the fact that the burner may not be able to run at full speed with that slow of CPU. It could also be that the PPro's are missing some instructions that later CPU's were given.
This is probably a really useless suggestion, but, you may wanna try using ATA66/100 cables. I have all my IDE drives, CD/DVD included, on ATA66/100 cables. Even if you have some other ATA33 cables lying around, you could try swapping them out.
I don't know who made your board, but SuperMicro is the only one I've seen that has dual PPro boards. Tyan may too, not totally sure here...
I'm not sure who made your board, but that might be something you'll wanna know. Check and see if you can get a BIOS update for it.
Again, back to the CPUs' power, since a good chunk of apps aren't multithreaded, the 2nd CPU probably isn't doing much.
I thought of something else that may explain why you can't hit max speed: using the wrong media (I highly doubt that's it), using bad media, or the fact that the burner may not be able to run at full speed with that slow of CPU. It could also be that the PPro's are missing some instructions that later CPU's were given.
This is probably a really useless suggestion, but, you may wanna try using ATA66/100 cables. I have all my IDE drives, CD/DVD included, on ATA66/100 cables. Even if you have some other ATA33 cables lying around, you could try swapping them out.
I don't know who made your board, but SuperMicro is the only one I've seen that has dual PPro boards. Tyan may too, not totally sure here...
The motherboard was made by MICRONICS. If you're interested, more information is available here:
http://www.diamondmm.com/default.asp?men...ntium_Pro_W6_Li
As for the BIOS, it is already updated with the latest version that succesfully "flashed". As for a UDMA/66 or UDMA/1000 card, I used to have a Promise UltraDMA/66 card but that caused problems with Linux, so I switched bak to my motherboard. I also seem to get better read/write speeds on the mothrboard rather than the card for some reason.
As for what games I ran, here is a short list. As you'll notice they're not very new games, but they are games that will work on my set of processors.
-Unreal Tournament: perfectly smooth at 800x600, slightly choppy (not very noticeable) at 1024x768 [my monitorn is a 14" and only supports up to 1024x768]
-Mortal Kombat 4 (default mode. I think its either 640x480 or 800x600) - runs perfectly smooth as is if it was a console game running on a console platform like SuperNES or Sega (very clear and smooth)
-Beetle buggin (1024x768 perfectly smooth)
-2D games like RedAlert2 (even though red alert 2 requires a 3D accelerator). Ran RA2 at 800x600 and 1024x768 crystal clear!
-[old]Jedi Knight - 1024x768 crystal clear and smooth. Of coarsem this is an OLD game
the list goes on. As I said earlier, this is no "GAMER'S" set of hot new games, it is merely a partial list of games that have been TESTED and WORK on my set of processors. There are more games that run of coarse.
Also, I tried installing 3dMark 2001 but the installation fails giving an error message like "could not create a direct3d texture device" or something like that, so I'm sorry but I can't give you a 3dMark score.
The video card I have in there is a 16 MB PCI Vodoo Banshee, which is probably why all these games even RUN to begin with on a pentium pro!
Anyways, I think the processors may not be up to the "challenge" of burning at 8x, especially since most CD burning software is not multi-threaded. If it WAS multi threaded it would be a different story.
Anyways, this is my info, I hope it helps you get a better idea
http://www.diamondmm.com/default.asp?men...ntium_Pro_W6_Li
As for the BIOS, it is already updated with the latest version that succesfully "flashed". As for a UDMA/66 or UDMA/1000 card, I used to have a Promise UltraDMA/66 card but that caused problems with Linux, so I switched bak to my motherboard. I also seem to get better read/write speeds on the mothrboard rather than the card for some reason.
As for what games I ran, here is a short list. As you'll notice they're not very new games, but they are games that will work on my set of processors.
-Unreal Tournament: perfectly smooth at 800x600, slightly choppy (not very noticeable) at 1024x768 [my monitorn is a 14" and only supports up to 1024x768]
-Mortal Kombat 4 (default mode. I think its either 640x480 or 800x600) - runs perfectly smooth as is if it was a console game running on a console platform like SuperNES or Sega (very clear and smooth)
-Beetle buggin (1024x768 perfectly smooth)
-2D games like RedAlert2 (even though red alert 2 requires a 3D accelerator). Ran RA2 at 800x600 and 1024x768 crystal clear!
-[old]Jedi Knight - 1024x768 crystal clear and smooth. Of coarsem this is an OLD game
the list goes on. As I said earlier, this is no "GAMER'S" set of hot new games, it is merely a partial list of games that have been TESTED and WORK on my set of processors. There are more games that run of coarse.
Also, I tried installing 3dMark 2001 but the installation fails giving an error message like "could not create a direct3d texture device" or something like that, so I'm sorry but I can't give you a 3dMark score.
The video card I have in there is a 16 MB PCI Vodoo Banshee, which is probably why all these games even RUN to begin with on a pentium pro!
Anyways, I think the processors may not be up to the "challenge" of burning at 8x, especially since most CD burning software is not multi-threaded. If it WAS multi threaded it would be a different story.
Anyways, this is my info, I hope it helps you get a better idea
About multi processors, cant you simply assign one process to one processor, one to another? Will this work? Or is it more complicated than that? I assume that both processors would utilize the same resources (RAM HD etc) so that could complicate things... but couldnt you design an OS that implemented this?
Hmmm...PPro's are Socket 8, so upgradability is probably shot right there. I guess you could try to find some PentiumII Overdrive cpu's, but that's about it, short of just getting a new rig.
You may be right there. Upgrading may be the only way to go. I might just build a new system and use this one as a small-scale server. I have a strong feeling it will perform well as a linux server or even Nt server.
Pythagoras: I'm trying to figure out how to word my answer. I've just recently gotten into multiprocessing, so there's quite a bit that I still don't know.
I believe Win2k and other multiprocessor OS's allow you to assign apps to each CPU, but not exclusively as in no other processes can access the CPU. The processors can and do access the same resources, but they access the resources where the app is. You don't need to assign resources manually, as Win2k--and I assume other MP OS--just do it themselves...
With 1 CPU, it can do only so much at a time before it starts to get weighed down--like anyone person and then you need help. If you have 2 people, more things can be done at the same time and they can work together on something like moving a couch more easily.
The only stipulation for multiprocessing systems is what OS can use it. Most OS's do, but Win95/98/98SE/ME/XP Home, DOS and Win1.0/3.0/3.1/3.11 don't. Variants and spinoffs of Unix do support it, but you have to enable support manually. Windows will automatically support it if 2 cpu's are there first. You only have to change the system if you're moving from 1 to 2 cpu's. I don't know if you'd have to change the system everytime you added more processors after 2 in supporting OS.
I believe Win2k and other multiprocessor OS's allow you to assign apps to each CPU, but not exclusively as in no other processes can access the CPU. The processors can and do access the same resources, but they access the resources where the app is. You don't need to assign resources manually, as Win2k--and I assume other MP OS--just do it themselves...
With 1 CPU, it can do only so much at a time before it starts to get weighed down--like anyone person and then you need help. If you have 2 people, more things can be done at the same time and they can work together on something like moving a couch more easily.
The only stipulation for multiprocessing systems is what OS can use it. Most OS's do, but Win95/98/98SE/ME/XP Home, DOS and Win1.0/3.0/3.1/3.11 don't. Variants and spinoffs of Unix do support it, but you have to enable support manually. Windows will automatically support it if 2 cpu's are there first. You only have to change the system if you're moving from 1 to 2 cpu's. I don't know if you'd have to change the system everytime you added more processors after 2 in supporting OS.
Yeah, I agree. I think win2k is a good multi-tasking OS, and I think it utilizes multiple processprs well. I'm waiitng for cash flow to build a new system 
Cool! I may "DUMP" some processes on my second processor using Task manager to get some juice out of it! Thanx for the info by the way. VERY HELPFUL
