From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Steven Cole <elenstev@mesatop.com>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>,
Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, karim@opersys.com
Subject: Re: Scaling noise
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:36:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030903193610.GV4306@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1062616315.1816.22.camel@spc9.esa.lanl.gov>
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 12:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> So as best as I can tell the proposal consists of using an orders-of-
>> magnitude slower communication method to implement an underspecified
>> solution to some research problem that to all appearances will be more
>> expensive to maintain and keep running than the now extant designs.
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:11:55PM -0600, Steven Cole wrote:
> You and Larry are either talking past each other, or perhaps it is I who
> don't understand the not-yet-existing CC-clusters. My understanding is
> that communication between nodes of a CC-cluster would be through a
> shared-memory mechanism, not through much slower I/O such as a network
> (even a very fast network).
> From Karim Yaghmour's paper here:
> http://www.opersys.com/adeos/practical-smp-clusters/
> "That being said, clustering packages may make assumptions that do not
> hold in the current architecture. Primarily, by having nodes so close
> together, physical network latencies and problems disappear."
The communication latencies will get better that way, sure.
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:11:55PM -0600, Steven Cole wrote:
>> I like distributed systems and clusters, and they're great to use for
>> what they're good for. They're not substitutes in any way for tightly
>> coupled systems, nor do they render large specimens thereof unnecessary.
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:11:55PM -0600, Steven Cole wrote:
> My point is this: Currently at least one vendor (SGI) wants to scale the
> kernel to 128 CPUs. As far as I know, the SGI Altix systems can be
> configured up to 512 CPUs. If the Intel Tanglewood really will have 16
> cores per chip, very much larger systems will be possible. Will you be
> able to scale the kernel to 2048 CPUs and beyond? This may happen
> during the lifetime of 2.8.x, so planning should be happening either now
> or soon.
This is not particularly exciting (or truthfully remotely interesting)
news. google for "BBN Butterfly" to see what was around ca. 1988.
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-03 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 152+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-03 9:41 Scaling noise Brown, Len
2003-09-03 11:02 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-09-03 11:19 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 11:47 ` Matthias Andree
2003-09-03 18:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 18:05 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 18:15 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 18:15 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 18:26 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 18:32 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 19:46 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 20:13 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 20:31 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 20:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-03 21:21 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 21:29 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-03 21:51 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 21:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 0:07 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-09-04 1:06 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 1:10 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 1:32 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-04 1:46 ` David Lang
2003-09-04 1:51 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-04 2:33 ` SSI clusters on NUMA (was Re: Scaling noise) Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 3:02 ` David Lang
2003-09-04 4:44 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 2:31 ` Scaling noise Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 2:40 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-09-04 2:50 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 3:49 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-09-04 2:48 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-04 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-09-07 21:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-09-07 23:07 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-07 23:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-09-08 0:57 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-08 3:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-09-08 4:47 ` Stephen Satchell
2003-09-08 5:25 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-08 8:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-09-04 0:58 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 1:12 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-04 2:49 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 3:15 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-04 3:38 ` Nick Piggin
2003-09-05 1:34 ` Robert White
2003-09-03 19:11 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-03 19:36 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-09-10 15:14 John Bradford
2003-09-10 10:01 John Bradford
2003-09-10 11:35 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-10 13:46 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-09-08 6:21 Brown, Len
2003-09-08 9:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-09-03 17:07 Brown, Len
2003-09-03 17:32 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 18:07 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 18:07 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 18:25 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 23:47 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 23:52 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 23:55 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-03 18:28 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-09-03 18:31 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 20:11 ` Diego Calleja García
2003-09-03 18:11 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 19:56 ` Daniel Gryniewicz
2003-09-03 18:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 0:36 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 2:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 2:34 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 2:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 3:02 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 3:46 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2003-09-04 4:41 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-10 15:02 ` Timothy Miller
2003-09-10 15:12 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-28 1:51 ` Paul Jakma
2003-09-28 3:13 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-29 0:47 ` Paul Jakma
2003-10-22 1:22 ` Paul Jakma
2003-10-22 3:46 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-04 3:16 ` David Lang
2003-09-04 3:45 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-04 4:51 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 3:47 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-09-04 4:16 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 7:43 ` Davide Libenzi
[not found] <rx83.88x.5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <rxrp.8wt.1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <rxB3.gg.1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <rxB6.gg.5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <rydL.17V.1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <rGXO.5g9.7@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-09-03 15:33 ` Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
2003-09-03 7:10 John Bradford
2003-09-03 7:38 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-09-03 11:14 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-08 20:05 ` bill davidsen
2003-09-03 5:02 Samium Gromoff
2003-09-03 4:03 Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 4:12 ` Roland Dreier
2003-09-03 4:20 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 15:12 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-03 4:18 ` Anton Blanchard
2003-09-03 4:29 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 4:33 ` CaT
2003-09-03 5:08 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 5:44 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2003-09-03 6:12 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2003-09-03 12:09 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 15:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-03 16:01 ` Jörn Engel
2003-09-03 16:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-03 19:41 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-09-03 20:11 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 20:36 ` Rik van Riel
2003-09-04 20:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 21:30 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-03 8:11 ` Giuliano Pochini
2003-09-03 14:25 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-03 12:47 ` Antonio Vargas
2003-09-03 15:31 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-04 1:50 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-09-04 1:52 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 4:42 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-08 19:40 ` bill davidsen
2003-09-04 2:18 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-04 2:19 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-04 2:35 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-09-04 2:40 ` Steven Cole
2003-09-04 3:20 ` Nick Piggin
2003-09-04 3:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-09-08 19:27 ` bill davidsen
2003-09-08 19:12 ` bill davidsen
2003-09-03 16:37 ` Kurt Wall
2003-09-06 15:08 ` Pavel Machek
2003-09-08 13:38 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-09 6:11 ` Rob Landley
2003-09-09 16:07 ` Ricardo Bugalho
2003-09-10 5:14 ` Rob Landley
2003-09-10 5:45 ` David Mosberger
2003-09-10 10:10 ` Ricardo Bugalho
2003-09-03 6:28 ` Anton Blanchard
2003-09-03 6:55 ` Nick Piggin
2003-09-03 15:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-03 15:39 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-03 15:50 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 0:49 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 2:21 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-09-04 2:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-09-04 2:46 ` Larry McVoy
2003-09-04 4:58 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-04 4:49 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-08 19:50 ` bill davidsen
2003-09-08 23:39 ` Peter Chubb
2003-09-03 17:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030903193610.GV4306@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=elenstev@mesatop.com \
--cc=karim@opersys.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm@bitmover.com \
--cc=lm@work.bitmover.com \
--cc=pochini@shiny.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.