Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:05:05 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Venting my frustration with FreeBSD Message-ID: <200612061805.05727.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20061206134536.0c775367@freen0de> References: <200612041443.15154.josh@tcbug.org> <200612061006.56852.jhb@freebsd.org> <20061206134536.0c775367@freen0de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:45, soralx@cydem.org wrote: > > > 512-way machine? Scaling on a 512-way machine is quite a different > > ball of wax from scaling on 4-way, and scaling up to 32 and 64 is > > going to be another ball of wax as well. > > can you give a few examples how scaling ability can be a function of > the number of cores? seems like my curiosity exceeds my imagination > today -- can't come up with any good reasons why this is true :) You may make different tradeoffs. For example, on a 4-cpu system, it may be fine to have certain data structures shared across CPUs and protected via a lock which avoids the overhead of multiple copies and complexity of updating multiple copies of a data structure. However, with a 512-way system you may have to resort to using duplicated per-cpu (or maybe per-cpu group) copies of a structure because the tradeoffs are different. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612061805.05727.jhb>