Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264928AbTIJPBK (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:01:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264943AbTIJPBK (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:01:10 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:20352 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264928AbTIJPBI (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:01:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:14:27 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200309101514.h8AFER1f000656@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: davidsen@tmr.com, john@grabjohn.com Subject: Re: Scaling noise Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1852 Lines: 44 [snip most of discussion] You have changed the topic completely. > > The hardware is fault tollerant by design. Only extreme events like a > > fire or flood at the datacentre are likely to cause downtime of the > > whole machine. I don't consider that any less secure than a rack of > > small servers. > > And power failure, loss of ISP connectivity, loss of phone service... > As said originally, reliability is *hard* and *expensive* to do right. Not sure how any of the above is related to the mainframe vs rack of micros discussion. Redundant ISP connectivity can be provided to both. You seem to be suggesting that I'm saying that it's a good idea to replace geographically distributed, separate microcomputer servers with a _single_ mainframe. I am not. I am only concerned with the per-site situation. As long as the geographically separate machine stays geographically separate it is no longer part of the equation. The only thing I am suggesting is that a single rack of machines in a datacentre somewhere could be replaced by a single machine with virtualisation technology, and the same or better hardware reliability as the rack of discrete machines, and there would be no loss of availability. Infact, increased availability may result, due to the ease of administrating virtual machines as opposed to physical machines, and the reduction in network hardware. > This would be a good topic for comp.arch, it's getting a bit OT here. Agreed, except that I brought it up to re-inforce Larry's point that scaling above ~4 CPUs and hurting <=4 CPUs performance was a bad thing. John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/