> > > 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.
In my neck of the woods (doing lots of multi-threaded stuff), that is the definition of 'fine-grained' locks, vs. 'coarse-grained' locks. What we have now is a big 'coarse-grained' lock. :) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
