Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:15:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:15:36 -0500 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:52104 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:15:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 13:14:45 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Larry McVoy cc: Rik van Riel , Lars Brinkhoff , Alan Cox , hps@intermeta.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SMP/cc Cluster description [was Linux/Pro] Message-ID: <2535737837.1007558085@mbligh.des.sequent.com> In-Reply-To: <20011205130547.X11801@work.bitmover.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > We don't agree on any of these points. Scaling to a 16 way SMP pretty much > ruins the source base, even when it is done by very careful people. I'd say that the normal current limit on SMP machines is 8 way. But you're right, we don't agree. Time will tell who was right. When I say I'm interested in 16 way scalability, I'm not talking about SMP, so perhaps we're talking at slightly cross purposes. > Seriously, I went through this at SGI, that's exactly what they did, and it > was a huge mistake and it never worked. You seem to make this odd logical deduction quite a bit - you (or company X) has tried concept X before. Their implementation didn't work. Therefore the concept is bad. It's not particularly convincing as an argument style to others. But I understand that it makes *you* want to try something else. Martin. - 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/