From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 24 12:40:18 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (unknown [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B83C15736 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:40:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA28518; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:39:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07731; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:39:10 -0600 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:39:10 -0600 Message-Id: <199906241939.NAA07731@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Brian F. Feldman" Cc: Karl Denninger , Doug , Mark Newton , drosih@rpi.edu, grog@lemis.com, mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: ...) In-Reply-To: References: <19990624125855.A8051@Denninger.Net> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > We're adding some machines at work for (essentially) cgi > > > processing only. It was never considered to use anything less than 2 cpu > > > boxes, and the current round of testing is going so well that we're > > > seriously considering 4 cpu boxes because they are not that much more > > > expensive and our processing is highly CPU bound. I agree that redundancy > > > is a good thing, but at some point the increased network latency exceends > > > the point of diminishing returns for the redundancy factor. > > > > > > In short, increasing SMP efficiency should really be a priority > > > for N>2 systems. > > > > Agreed. But this is a BIG job, because to do that you have to solve the > > "one big kernel lock" problem and go to fine-grained locking. This is a > > non-trivial job. > > We don't need fine-grained locks. We would get good performance if we > could get (say) per-subsystem locks. In my neck of the woods (doing lots of multi-threaded stuff), that is the definition of 'fine-grained' locks, vs. 'coarse-grained' locks. What we have now is a big 'coarse-grained' lock. :) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message