Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:13:44 +0200 (CEST) | From | venom@sns ... | Subject | Re: Does Solaris really scale this well? |
| |
80% is quite possible, I have similar results with a E10K domain of around 32 CPUs, with a 100mhz bus. Buf 80% is far from 94%...
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Peter Chubb wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:58:06 +1000 > From: Peter Chubb <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> > To: venom@sns.it > Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, > Ruth Ivimey-Cook <Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org>, > 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? > > >>>>> "venom" == venom <venom@sns.it> writes: > > venom> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:55:17 -0700 From: Larry McVoy > > venom> And where reasonable != 94%. Seriously, 94% scalability could > venom> be on a 8 CPUs 880, but, for example, I have a 64 CPUS domain > venom> on a E10k which is far from 94% scalability (ok, an old E10k > venom> with an 83Mhz bus). For what I saw, maybe SGI Origin 3000 is > venom> scaling a little better with a lot of CPUS, but I also never > venom> had an E15000 around for now... > > I've played around with 8-way E10000 and a 128-way Origin. > Both scaled reasonably from an OS perspective --- enabling more cpus on > a mixed lots-of-small-jobs workload increased performance close to > linearly --- from memory (and it was a couple of years ago) above > 80%, and in some tests better than that. Unfotunately, I no longer > have access either to the machines or to the data, as I've changed jobs... > > Peter C >
- 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/
|  |