Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:15:22 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: nate@yogotech.com Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), eischen@vigrid.com (Daniel Eischen), jasone@canonware.com (Jason Evans), smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary Message-ID: <200006282315.QAA03731@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 25, 2000 10:42:02 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Dynix had no problem with 32 processors. Most SVR4 variants, and > > I will include Solaris in this, use mutex protection of structures, > > and start to fall down drastically over 4 processors. > > Amazing that you say this, yet I see extremely good results on Solaris > boxes up to 64 processors. Boxes or clusters? NUMA or non-NUMA? MESI or MEI cache coherency? > Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced, nor am I convinced that > mutex's around data structures is any different than critical > sectioning. > > They are essentially the same thing, in that the critical section is > almost always the code that deals with a particular (shared) data > structure. I can put you in touch with Sabsovitch or Leventhal if you need the people who actually wrote the code, rather than someone who has only read and modified the code, if you think that authority lends credulity. A SPARCCenter is not the same thing as an Intel box running SMP, and is not even the same as a SPARC-20 running multiple processors or a Sparc 5 with a Weitek processor add-in. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006282315.QAA03731>