public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Ruth Ivimey-Cook <Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org>
Cc: Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>,
	Dax Kelson <dax@gurulabs.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Does Solaris really scale this well?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:55:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020817175517.A31128@work.bitmover.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208172358460.3111-100000@sharra.ivimey.org>; from Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org on Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:03:24AM +0100

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:03:24AM +0100, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:
> >> "When you take a 99-way UltraSPARC III machine and add a 100th processor, 
> >> you get 94 percent linear scalability. You can't get 94 percent linear 
> >> scalability on your first Intel chip. It's very, very hard to do, and they 
> >> have not done it."
> 
> I've seen scientific reports of scalability that good in non-shared memory
> computers (mostly in transputer arrays) where (with a scalable algorithm)
> unless you got >90% you were doing something wrong.  However, if you insist on
> sharing main memory, I still don't believe you can get anywhere near that...
> IMO 30% is doing very well once past the first few CPUs.

Please reconsider your opinion.  Both Sun and SGI scale past 100 CPUs on
reasonable workloads in shared memory.  Where "reasonable" != easy to do.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

  reply	other threads:[~2002-08-18  0:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-08-17 13:02 IDE? Adam J. Richter
2002-08-17 13:22 ` IDE? Alexander Kellett
2002-08-17 17:37   ` IDE? Andre Hedrick
2002-08-17 17:53     ` Does Solaris really scale this well? Dax Kelson
2002-08-17 18:27       ` Matti Aarnio
2002-08-17 23:03         ` Ruth Ivimey-Cook
2002-08-18  0:55           ` Larry McVoy [this message]
2002-08-18  8:35             ` David S. Miller
2002-08-18 10:28             ` venom
2002-08-18 12:33             ` Ruth Ivimey-Cook
2002-08-19 13:42               ` Does Solaris really scale this well? [OT] Dana Lacoste
2002-08-18  1:46       ` Does Solaris really scale this well? venom
2002-08-17 19:51   ` IDE? Alan Cox
2002-08-18 12:43     ` IDE? Alexander Kellett
2002-08-17 18:26 ` IDE? Andreas Dilger
2002-08-19  9:54   ` IDE? Vojtech Pavlik
     [not found] <15713.30718.950168.358907@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au>
2002-08-20 10:13 ` Does Solaris really scale this well? venom
2002-08-20 12:13   ` Jakob Oestergaard

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=20020817175517.A31128@work.bitmover.com \
    --to=lm@bitmover.com \
    --cc=Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org \
    --cc=dax@gurulabs.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matti.aarnio@zmailer.org \
    /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