On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Karl Denninger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 10:54:37AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > We're adding some machines at work for (essentially) cgi
> > processing only. It was never considered to use anything less than 2 cpu
> > boxes, and the current round of testing is going so well that we're
> > seriously considering 4 cpu boxes because they are not that much more
> > expensive and our processing is highly CPU bound. I agree that redundancy
> > is a good thing, but at some point the increased network latency exceends
> > the point of diminishing returns for the redundancy factor.
> >
> > In short, increasing SMP efficiency should really be a priority
> > for N>2 systems.
>
> Agreed. But this is a BIG job, because to do that you have to solve the
> "one big kernel lock" problem and go to fine-grained locking. This is a
> non-trivial job.
We don't need fine-grained locks. We would get good performance if we
could get (say) per-subsystem locks.
>
> --
> Karl Denninger (k...@denninger.net) Web: fathers.denninger.net
> I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give
> up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
gr...@freebsd.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
