From: Austin Gonyou <austin@digitalroadkill.net>
To: Austin Gonyou <austin@digitalroadkill.net>
Cc: Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again
Date: 27 May 2002 18:08:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1022540932.29149.3.camel@UberGeek> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1022538288.25097.2.camel@UberGeek>
Just to clarify, it was Sparc v. x86. (which is what I meant to state in
my first sentence there. :)
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 17:24, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> I'm not referring to just *non* x86 arches in this case. Sorry about
> that. Any setup can be non-monolithic, but the measurement to decide if
> it is cost worthy is price/performance ratio.
>
> I'm not saying that "if it's not x86, it's monolithic", in the context
> of the discussion, it's really about large costly boxes, designed to be
> large, costly boxes. That, from this perspective, is monolithic.
>
>
> On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 04:24, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > On 24 May 2002, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 11:31, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > > > >> I'm not sure exactly what Roy was doing, but we were taking a machine
> > > > >> with 16Gb of RAM, and reading files into the page cache - I think we built up
> > > > >> 8 million buffer_heads according to slabinfo ... on a P4 they're 128 bytes each,
> > > > >> on a P3 96 bytes.
> > > > >
> > > > > The buffer heads one would make sense. I only test on realistic sized systems.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it'll still waste valuable memory there too, though you may not totally kill it.
> > > >
> > > > > Once you pass 4Gb there are so many problems its not worth using x86 in the
> > > > > long run
> > > >
> > > I assume that you mean by "not worth using x86" you're referring to say,
> > > degraded performance over other platforms? Well...if you talk
> > > price/performance, using x86 is perfect in those terms since you can buy
> > > more boxes and have a more fluid architecture, rather than building a
> > > monolithic system. Monolithic systems aren't always the best. Just look
> > > at Fermilab!
> >
> > Uh? There are many alpha-based clusters out there. Why do you think
> > !x86 == monolithic?
> >
> > .TM.
> > --
> > ____/ ____/ /
> > / / / Marco Colombo
> > ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
> > / / / ESI s.r.l.
> > _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
> >
> -
> 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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-27 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-23 13:11 [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 14:54 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-23 16:29 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 16:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 10:04 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-24 14:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 19:32 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-30 10:29 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-30 19:28 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-31 16:56 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-31 18:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-06-18 11:26 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-06-18 19:42 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-19 11:26 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-07-10 7:50 ` [2.4 BUFFERING BUG] (was [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again) Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-07-10 8:05 ` Andrew Morton
2002-07-10 8:14 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-28 9:28 ` [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-28 15:30 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-29 8:00 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-29 13:42 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-30 9:21 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-30 17:19 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-30 18:49 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-24 15:11 ` [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Alan Cox
2002-05-24 15:53 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 16:14 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-24 16:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 17:30 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 17:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 18:03 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 18:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-24 18:29 ` 2.4 Kernel Perf discussion [Was Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again] Austin Gonyou
2002-05-24 19:01 ` Stephen Frost
2002-05-27 9:24 ` [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Marco Colombo
2002-05-27 22:24 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-27 23:08 ` Austin Gonyou [this message]
2002-05-27 11:12 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-27 14:31 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-27 13:43 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 16:03 ` Johannes Erdfelt
2002-05-23 16:33 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 22:50 ` Luigi Genoni
2002-05-24 11:53 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-23 18:12 ` jlnance
2002-05-24 10:36 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-31 21:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-06-01 12:36 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
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=1022540932.29149.3.camel@UberGeek \
--to=austin@digitalroadkill.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marco@esi.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox