Messages in this thread | | | From | "Scott Robert Ladd" <> | Subject | RE: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call | Date | Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:37:34 -0500 |
| |
Steven Cole wrote: > Hans may have 32 CPUs in his $3000 box, and I expect to have 8 CPUs in > my $500 Walmart special 5 or 6 years hence. And multiple chip on die > along with HT is what will make it possible.
Or will Walmart be selling systems with one CPU for $62.50?
"Normal" folk simply have no use for an 8 CPU system. Sure, the technology is great -- but no many people are buying HDTV, let alone a computer system that could do real-time 3D holographic imaging. What Walmart is selling today for $199 is a 1.1 GHz Duron system with minimal memory and a 10GB hard drive. Not exactly state of the art (although it might make a nice node in a super-cheap cluster!)
Of course, you'll have your Joe Normals who will buy multiprocessor machines with neon lights and case windows -- but those are the same people who drive a Ford Excessive 4WD SuperCab pickup when the only thing they ever "haul" is groceries.
(Note: I drive a big SUV because I *do* haul stuff, and I've got lots of kids -- the right tool for the job, as Alan stated.)
> What concerns me is that this will make it possible to put insane > numbers of CPUs in those $250,000 and higher boxes. If Martin et al can > scale Linux to 64 CPUs, can they make it scale several binary orders of > magnitude higher? Why do this? NUMA memory is much faster than even > very fast network connections any day. > > Is there a market for such a thing?
Such systems will be very useful in limited markets. If I need to simulate the global climate or the evolution of galaxies, I can damned-well use 65,536 quad-core CPUs, and I'll be happy to install Linux on such a box. Writing e-mail or scanning my kids' drawings doesn't require that sort of power.
> Please listen to Larry. When he says you can't scale endlessly, I have > a feeling he knows what he's talking about. The Nirvana machine has 48 > SGI boxes with 128 CPUs in each. I don't hear about many 128 CPU > machines nowadays. Perhaps Irix just wasn't quite up to the job. But > new technologies will make this kind of machine affordable (by the > government and financial institutions) in the not too distant future.
Linux needs a roadmap; perhaps it has one, and I just haven't seen it?
I'm not entirely certain that Linux can scale from toasters to Deep Thought; the needs of an office worker don't coincide well with the needs of a scientist trying to simulate the dynamics of hurricanes. I've worked both ends of that spectrum; they really are two different universes that may not be effectively addressed by one Linux.
I, for one, would rather see Linux work best on high-end systems; I have no problem leaving the low end of the spectrum to consumer-oriented companies like Microsoft. Linux has the most potential of any extant OS, in my opinion, for handling the types of systems you envision. And to achieve such a goal, some planning needs to be done *now* to avoid quagmires and minefields in the future.
..Scott
-- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
- 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/
| |