> > Hmm... if that's the case, how would you rate quad-P3Xeon (1MB and 2MB > cache)? > Let me intercept this. We have one dual P4 1.7 GHz machine and its performance is horrible compared to dual 1.4 GHz Tualatin machines. We also have a couple of 4-way 700 MHz P3 Xeon/2MB machine and its single CPU performs at 50% of the above mentioned Tualatins (clock speed ?). I don't think that in our case size of L2 cache plays that big of a role. Most of the stuff we run seems to be I/O and sometimes memory-bound anyway. We do have some strictly CPU-bound programs. And there's of course all these little programs that are not threaded so a large SMP box wouldn't help that much anyway. What I'd like to hear myself is people's experiences with Itanium-based systems. Besides the hardware, the OS itself plays a big role. I tested a lots of different Linux kernels running different benchmarks on these machines and wouldn't suggest anyone using anything less than 2.4.17 (A. Cox-patched kernels always seem to be better). I didn't have good luck with Redhat- supplied 2.4.7-10smp and 2.4.9-21smp kernels (mostly NFS, Reiserfs, and >2 GB files related things). I did have success with Rawhide 2.4.17-0.16smp and up kernels even though they are considered experimental (that's if you don't want to compile them yourself and you're using Redhat). Again, this is based only on my experience. Goran Ceric System Administrator Washington University St. Louis Department of Genetics, Eddy Lab goran@genetics.wustl.edu http://www.genetics.wustl.edu/eddy