[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Does Solaris really scale this well?
    On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Matti Aarnio wrote:

    >On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 11:53:16AM -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
    >> From:
    >> Scott McNealy:
    >> "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."
    > Conditionally... I would like to know the exact architecture,
    >and the problem set running in the system to say.
    >When you have noncc-NUMA, you have a Beowulf-like setup.
    >when you have cc-NUMA ("cc" = cache coherent), things get
    >truly hairy...

    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.



    Ruth Ivimey-Cook
    Software engineer and technical writer.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.047 / U:2.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site