Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:07:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:07:12 -0500 Received: from mail3.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.38]:45071 "EHLO mail3.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:06:59 -0500 From: "M. Edward Borasky" To: Subject: RE: Over 4-way systems considered harmful :-) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:07:14 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <2436533899.1007458881@mbligh.des.sequent.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Martin J. Bligh > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:41 AM > To: M. Edward Borasky; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Over 4-way systems considered harmful :-) > > Two things. > > 1) If a company (say, IBM) pays people to work on 8 / 16 way scalability > because that's what they want out of Linux, then stopping development > on that isn't going to get effort redirected to fixing your > soundcard (yes, > I realise you were being flippant, but the point's the same), the > headcount > is just going to disappear. AKA your choice isn't "patches for 8 way > scalablilty, or patches for subsystem X that you're more interested in", > your choice is "patches for 8-way scalabity, or no patches". Provided that > those patches don't break anything else, you still win overall by > getting them. I don't see how this is a win for me. And it is a win for IBM only if it gives them some advantage in serving their customers. I can certainly *conceive* of workloads bursty enough to justify an 8-processor server, but do they exist in the real world? And if they do, is a single 8-processor server better than a pair of 4-processor servers when you take graceful handling of faults into account? IBM has been building high-availability systems for *decades*, preferring to field *slightly* slower but *significantly* more reliable gear, which, legend has it, no one has ever been fired for purchasing. :-) > 2) Working on scalability for 8 / 16 way machines will show up races, > performance problems et al that exist on 2 / 4 way machines but don't > show up as often, or as obviously. I have a 16 way box that shows up > races in the Linux kernel that might take you years to find on a 2 way. Perhaps effort should be placed into software development processes and tools that deny race conditions the right to be born, rather than depending on testing on a 16-processor system to find them expeditiously :-). And there is a whole discipline of software performance engineering to build performance in from the start. Advances like that would be a *huge* win for the Linux community, given our (relative) freedom from corporate-world limitations like deadlines, sales quotas, programmer salaries, and full-color brochures. > What I'm trying to say is that you still win. Not as much as maybe you'd > like, but, hey, it's work you're getting for free, so don't complain too > much about it. The maintainers are very good at beating the message > into us that we can't make small systems any worse performing whilst > making the big systems better. No, but we can release partly-baked VM schemes that have a shelf life on the order of days :-). Seriously, though, I don't like stepping on someone else's dream, especially since *my* dream -- a GFLOP dedicated to computer music -- has been fulfilled for about $1500 US. When I bought that machine, I thought I was going to need two processors -- one to run the OS and service the keyboard, mouse and monitor and a second dedicated to generating audio samples in real time. I had no idea how powerful these chips were until I started shopping around. And when I loaded the Atlas linear algebra library up on my Athlon and saw the speeds it was getting, I was in shock for almost a week! However, as I said in another post: "Moore's Law: good. Amdahl's Law: bad." I guess the new generation has to discover Amdahl's Law for itself, and *this* distinguished but elderly scientist is eager to be proven wrong :-). -- Take Your Trading to the Next Level! M. Edward Borasky, Meta-Trading Coach znmeb@borasky-research.net http://www.meta-trading-coach.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/meta-trading-coach - 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/