>> OK, so now you've slid from talking about PCs to 2-way to 4-way ...
>> perhaps because your original arguement was fatally flawed.
>
> oh, come on. the issue is whether memory is fast and flat.
> most "scalability" efforts are mainly trying to code around the fact
> that any ccNUMA (and most 4-ways) is going to be slow/bumpy.
Scalability is not just NUMA machines by any stretch of the imagination.
It's 2x, 4x, 8x SMP as well.
> it is reasonable to worry that optimizations for imbalanced machines
> will hurt "normal" ones. is it worth hurting uni by 5% to give
> a 50% speedup to IBM's 32-way? I think not, simply because
> low-end machines are more important to Linux.
We would never try to propose such a change, and never have.
Name a scalability change that's hurt the performance of UP by 5%.
There isn't one.
> ccNUMA worst-case latencies are not much different from decent
> cluster (message-passing) latencies. getting an app to work on a cluster
> is a matter of programming will.
It's a matter of repeatedly reimplementing a bunch of stuff in userspace,
instead of doing things in kernel space once, properly, with all the
machine specific knowledge that's needed. It's *so* much easier to
program over a single OS image.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:37 EST