X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=NESA05IfEeTsinkg
	B8BVgYhjRKMF7maNuU9Zo/AIG2hW7kk3izGLBCM4Gti0pxTQUAILuorDJ8YYVVMr
	suAo6m3tFRez+6xkuhtZ9V9vW8XmNVBnqihx9f+z/ngm4JB61dUSudzH2cdf1XNk
	EFeUFSrdM14ZoOMUZh018A2/6/M=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=DXrnD59rDqPqajM8ATG4BF
	szCM8=; b=K1fcAO0CoemRNb+Q/3kqybkpByw5ko1qIXopuz0l9G4pT+b5HN/rRG
	VS9pwLIlPY69C4fSjNbTyatdGAOnUFJKtVEwmD7NQVhO0Me7hxEBble8ZwXuX+u4
	gIT/OUJ8eWagrZ2b66UosbhtV7jkHn31eAzVWiRV8uyJO3opuF06w=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: Yes, score=5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,BAYES_999,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,MIME_BASE64_BLANKS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: smtp.ht-systems.ru
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:54:02 +0300
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <1938645615.20150810195402@yandex.ru>
To: Warren Young <wyml AT etr-usa DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Somebody having access to a Windows machine with > 64 CPUs?
In-Reply-To: <6E689F0D-F196-4D1B-B6FA-782A27AF936C@etr-usa.com>
References: <20150810160011 DOT GC13029 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <6E689F0D-F196-4D1B-B6FA-782A27AF936C AT etr-usa DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id t7AH5mhE003912

Greetings, Warren Young!

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> wrote:
>> 
>> for testing, I need somebody running a small test program on a machine
>> with more than 64 CPUs under Windows 7 or later.

> I don’t think that’s possible today.  Windows 7 Professional is limited to
> 2 physical processors and 256 cores, so the only way to get the result you
> want is a 2x33+ core system without Hyperthreading, or a 2x17+ core system with HT.

She didn't say she need an output from "Pro" version.
If you're referring to "Windows 7", that's just a generation, Windows Server
will suffice as well.

> Source:
> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements

> The lesser versions of Windows 7 also have 256-core limits, but only allow
> 1 physical processor, so you’d need a 65+ core processor without HT, or 33+ with HT.

> According to Newegg, the biggest ones available today are 16-core, so you
> can just barely hit 64 on Win7 Pro with HT, today.

> I think you need to wait another processor generation to break 64 logical cores under Windows 7.

> The contemporaneous version of Server is, I believe 2008 R2, which has 4+
> socket limits in all but the Foundation version, which would let you get to
> your 72 or 96 logical processor counts with today’s processors.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Monday, August 10, 2015 19:53:00

Sorry for my terrible english...