From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 24 12:59:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from Genesis.Denninger.Net (kdhome-2.pr.mcs.net [205.164.6.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60A814C91 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:59:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from karl@Genesis.Denninger.Net) Received: (from karl@localhost) by Genesis.Denninger.Net (8.9.3/8.8.2) id OAA08301; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:57:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <19990624145755.B8280@Denninger.Net> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:57:55 -0500 From: Karl Denninger To: "Brian F. Feldman" Cc: Doug , Mark Newton , drosih@rpi.edu, grog@lemis.com, mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: ...) References: <19990624125855.A8051@Denninger.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Brian F. Feldman on Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 02:33:10PM -0400 Organization: Karl's Sushi and Packet Smashers X-Die-Spammers: Spammers will be LARTed and the remains fed to my cat Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 02:33:10PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 10:54:37AM -0700, Doug wrote: > > > 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. That's still a non-trivial task. :-) -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Web: fathers.denninger.net I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message