New warning, didn't appear way back in the day

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

All memory is physical.

Doesn't stop the term "virtual memory" from being a term which is both useful and widely understood.

I don't mind the term virtual-thread. But it has to be in the right context.

Using LaurV's example counts above: "The OS has 50 virtual threads that it will manage and schedule to the 8 CPU threads. The CPU will then in turn schedule the 8 threads into the 4 cores."

I think that more closely matches the virtual-memory paradigm.

But a virtual core is never correct IMO. We can't allocate cores to some virtual space, we allocate threads.

[JuanTutors]

So since my computer has 8 real cores, when I am running 1 exponent, I should set it to use 8 cores, and when I'm running 2 exponents, I should set it to use 4 cores?

[retina]

Originally Posted by JuanTutors

So since my computer has 8 real cores, when I am running 1 exponent, I should set it to use 8 cores, and when I'm running 2 exponents, I should set it to use 4 cores?

You need to see what works with your system.

1 x 8 (1 worker using 8 threads) might be okay.

But also, 2 x 4 could be better.

Or some other combination like 3 x 2, or 1 x 6, or 4 x 2, etc.

You need to try them and see how it goes. We can't predict ahead of time.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by JuanTutors

So since my computer has 8 real cores, when I am running 1 exponent, I should set it to use 8 cores, and when I'm running 2 exponents, I should set it to use 4 cores?

Yes, that's the idea. One worker uses 8 cores, but if two workers, then each uses 4 cores. But please run the benchmarks from the menu and see for which configuration you get the highest output for the used FFT or work type. All systems are different.

[Xyzzy]

WRT cores, things might get even more complicated: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/laptops/new...-cores-2268337