Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 18 Aug 2002 00:03:24 +0100 (BST) | From | Ruth Ivimey-Cook <> | Subject | Re: 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: >> http://www.itworld.com/Man/3828/020816mcnealy/ >> >> 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.
Regards,
Ruth
-- 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 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/
|  |