Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:07:46 -0600 From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Venting my frustration with FreeBSD Message-ID: <200612051707.46705.josh@tcbug.org> In-Reply-To: <200612051736.47980.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200612041443.15154.josh@tcbug.org> <200612051606.50137.josh@tcbug.org> <200612051736.47980.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 16:36, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 05 December 2006 17:06, Josh Paetzel wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 December 2006 15:36, pete wright wrote: > > > On 12/5/06, Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 05 December 2006 11:19, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > > > > 1) SMP scalability. 4-way boxes are relatively common, > > > > > > and hardware with higher CPU counts is only going to get > > > > > > more and more common. I'm no industry expert, but 5 years > > > > > > from now will my clients be considering buying 32 and 64 > > > > > > way boxes? Possibly. Will FreeBSD be in a positiion to > > > > > > compete favorably vs. the alternatives on such hardware? > > > > > > > > > > People have been working on this for years. It's a > > > > > difficult thing to get right. Sun has been spending a *LOT* > > > > > of time doing this for Solaris, and I bet that even Linux > > > > > isn't there yet. > > > > > > > > Linux actually scales very well in this area. My friends in > > > > the supercomputer business tell me that people are > > > > successfully using linux on 1024-way SSI boxes. It doesn't > > > > scale quite as well as IRIX, but a lot of people opt for > > > > linux anyways. > > > > > > > > For instance, NASA Columbia, which is a cluster of 20 512-way > > > > SSI Altix's is successfully running linux, and comes in #8 on > > > > top500.org's supercomputer list. > > > > > > yea, i'm pretty familiar with those systems and i would have to > > > say that the Altix is indeed quite impressive. but, i would > > > not equate the ability for SGI to implement a large SSI cluster > > > like this to a "normal" user being able to implement a similar > > > setup with a stock linus kernel or stock distro for that > > > matter.... > > > > > > -pete > > > > What sort of 'normal' user has access to that kind of hardware? > > > > Of course they aren't running a stock kernel or distro, but > > neither are a lot of the guys using linux on real-time embedded > > hardware. Google doesn't run a stock kernel or distro either, and > > Verio and Yahoo don't run stock FreeBSD distributions or kernels > > either. > > I would wager that Yahoo's FreeBSD kernel is a lot more stock than > the Altix one for Linux though. I think the poster's point is that > you aren't going to get an OTS OS to run on a 512-way cluster, and > that if one had time and hardware one could probably hack FreeBSD > up a bunch to run on a 512-way system just as SGI hacked up Linux. Not to be pedantic, but the 512 way systems I mentioned are SSI boxes, not clusters. Granted I did mention a cluster of SSI boxes.... But yes, your point is taken. My point is no one has bothered (AFAIK) to do the needed work to FBSD. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612051707.46705.josh>