Aggregate Storage And Multi-Threading/Multi-Core Systems

Question

Please pardon if this question has been asked before, but the Forum search is not returning any relevant results.
We are in the process of purchasing hardware for an 11.1.2 Essbase environment. We are going 64-bit, on Windows 2008, with either 32 GB or 64 GB of system RAM. The debate we are having is the number of CPUs and cores per CPU. We have not built any ASO databases as of yet, but we plan to launch a major BSO to ASO conversion project once 11.1.2 is off the ground here.
Historically, with BSO, we did not see performance improvements significant enough to justify the cost of additional CPUs when we ran calcs on multi-CPU systems vs. single or dual CPU systems, even when the settings and design should have taken the most advantage of BSO's multi-threading capabilities. However, it would seem that ASO's design may be able to make better use of multi-core systems.
I know that there are a lot of factors behind any system's performance, but in general, is ASO in 11.1.2 written well enough to make it worthwhile to consider, say, a four CPU, total 16 core system vs. a 2 CPU, total four core system?

Answer 1

Grand central dispatch - infancy, not really doing its job, and I don't think apps have to be specifically written for HT, but they do have to not do things that they use to - prevent threads from going to sleep! or be parked.
high usage is not necessarily high efficiency. often the opposite.
Windows 7 seems to be optimized for multi-core thanks to a lot of reworking. Intel wants and knows it isn't possible to hand code, that the hardware has to be smarter, too. But the OS has a job, and right now I don't think it does it properly. Or handle memory.
Gulftown's 12MB cache will help, and over all should be 20% more efficient doing its work.
With dual processors, and it doesn't look like there are two quick path bridges, data shuffling has led to memory thrashing. Use to be page thrashing with not enough memory. Then core thrashing but having the cores, but not integrated (2008 is often touted as being greatest design so far, but it was FOUR dual-cores, 2009 was the first with a processor that really was new design and (native) 4-core.
One core should be owned by the OS so it is always available for its own work and housekeeping.
The iTunes audio bug last year showed how damaging and not to implement code and how a thread could usurp processing and add a high cpu temperature while basically doing nothing, sort of a denial of service attack on the processor - those 80*C temps people had.
All those new technology features under development and not like OpenCL, GCD and even OpenGL are tested, mature but rather 1.0 foundation for the future. A year ahead of readiness.