Re: Linux/Pro [was Re: Coding style - a non-issue]

Martin J. Bligh
2001-12-04T06:29:48Z

>> Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:
>>
>> > then 4->8, etc. By your logic, someone should be sitting down and saying
>> > here is how you get to 128. Other than myself, noone is doing that and
>> > I'm not really a Linux kernel hack, so I don't count.
>>
>> "No one that you know". I'm always surprised that you're able to speak
>> with such confidence. There may be lots of things going on that don't
>> daily report to you.
>
> Right you are, but... There is also piles of information that I absorb
> on a daily basis, and I'm always willing to be educated. For example,
> you could educate me about all those 128 processor Linux boxes in the
> world and fill in a hole in my knowledge. I'm listening...

SGI has machines bigger than 128 (if memory serves, 1024??) that I thought
had booted Linux. The Sequent/IBM NUMA-Q archictecture now supports Linux
and would go to 64 procs if we removed a few bitmap limitations from the kernel
that have been patched out before (well, actually 60 is easy, 64 would require
some more apic modifications).

Anyway, bigger than 8 way is no pipedream. I'll admit few people could afford
such machines, but they do exist.

Martin.