Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again

Marco Colombo
2002-05-27T09:25:04Z

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