On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 02:33:10PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > 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.
That's still a non-trivial task. :-) -- -- 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
