Re: Scaling noise

[bill davidsen]

In article <20030903153901.GB5769@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Larry McVoy  <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

| It's really easy to claim that scalability isn't the problem.  Scaling
| changes in general cause very minute differences, it's just that there
| are a lot of them.  There is constant pressure to scale further and people
| think it's cool.  You can argue you all you want that scaling done right
| isn't a problem but nobody has ever managed to do it right.  I know it's
| politically incorrect to say this group won't either but there is no 
| evidence that they will.

I think that if the problem of a single scheduler which is "best" at
everything proves out of reach, perhaps in 2.7 a modular scheduler will
appear, which will allow the user to select the Nick+Con+Ingo
responsiveness, or the default pretty good at everything, or the 4kbit
affinity mask NUMA on steroids solution.

I have faith that Linux will solve this one one way or the other,
probably both.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/