Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:28:12 +0200 (CEST) | From | venom@sns ... | Subject | Re: Does Solaris really scale this well? |
| |
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:55:17 -0700 > From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> > To: Ruth Ivimey-Cook <Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org> > Cc: Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>, Dax Kelson <dax@gurulabs.com>, > "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: Does Solaris really scale this well? > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:03:24AM +0100, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote: > > >> "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." > > > > 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. > > Please reconsider your opinion. Both Sun and SGI scale past 100 CPUs on > reasonable workloads in shared memory. Where "reasonable" != easy to do.
And where reasonable != 94%. Seriously, 94% scalability could be on a 8 CPUs 880, but, for example, I have a 64 CPUS domain on a E10k which is far from 94% scalability (ok, an old E10k with an 83Mhz bus). For what I saw, maybe SGI Origin 3000 is scaling a little better with a lot of CPUS, but I also never had an E15000 around for now...
- 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/
|  |