Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 May 2005 03:50:03 -0700 | Subject | Re: RT patch acceptance | From | Bill Huey (hui) <> |
| |
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 03:34:17AM -0700, Bill Huey wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 03:22:59AM -0700, Bill Huey wrote: > > On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 07:55:00AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > You're on crack as usual, but today you go much too far. XFS doesn't > > > ahave anything to do with you're so Hard RT pipedreams. The so-called > > > 'RT' subvolulme only provides a more determinitistic block allocator. > > > GRIO doesn't require any RT guarantees, it's entirely about I/O scheduling > > > and has been ported to various operating systems with sane locking semantics. > > > > I actually when I talked to the SGI folks about 5 years ago at Usenix > > I got a different story where they really were thinking about hacking > > a tasklet to handle some of this IO stuff going. So I'm going to bet > > that you're wrong about this based on that conversation. > > I'd like to add that 16x way SGI boxes can play and record something like > 300+ individual streams that are frame accurate. An SGI buddy of mine > mention that CNN actually uses such a box to handle all of their video > data in real time.
Also, to continue this open minded discussion and reply of yours. How do you think IO is submitted to a system like that so that those guarantees are met ? Obivously some kind deterministic mechanism is pushing those requests to the wire.
bill
- 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/
| |