From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: sysfs makes scaling suck Re: Asynchronous scsi scanning Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 13:49:52 -0400 Message-ID: <20070517174952.GB30571@kvack.org> References: <1179153096.3703.23.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17841.simon.1179228389@5ec7c279.invalid> <20070515120228.GI10562@parisc-linux.org> <4649E03A.1090004@simon.arlott.org.uk> <20070515172905.GJ10562@parisc-linux.org> <20070517173238.GA30571@kvack.org> <1179423924.3785.30.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([66.96.29.28]:57915 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760263AbXEQRtz (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 13:49:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1179423924.3785.30.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Satyam Sharma , Matthew Wilcox , Simon Arlott , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-packagers@vger.kernel.org, "Robert P. J. Day" On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:45:24PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > But also, the sysfs with over 4,000 (and higher) devices was > specifically checked by OSDL (actually as part of the CGL testing) some > of the Manoj changes (for unpinning entries etc) were needed to get it > to function, but as of now, I believe an enterprise scaling test works > reasonably well for it ... there certainly wasn't any evidence of it > dying horribly in the tests. i386 exhausts lowmem very quickly. SCSI is in a bit better shape than network devices as the multiplier is only around 4 compared to 16 for network devices. My point stands, though. Forcing every new feature to go in via sysfs is not the right thing to do. Some people don't/can't use it, please remember them. -ben -- "Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important." Don't Email: .