Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:21:09 -0600 From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: rob@controlq.com (Robert S. Sciuk), freebsd-sparc@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: <200008180321.VAA19373@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At the macro architectural level the approach being taken is not that unlike Solaris which has been shown to run acceptability with something greater than 4 processors. It is also true that until we get it up and stable and can work on those areas, such as the single scheduling lock, it is not going to scale above a smallish number of processors. It simply is not practical to do everything at once, debugging the simplified scheme is tough enough. Chuck } }I have rather grave concerns about some of the technical }approaches being pursued in this attempt, particularly as }concerns use of kernel threads to dumb-down state machines }to the point that linear thinkers can understand them. The }SMP scaling strategy currently looks to be limited in value }over 4 processors, which is supposedly an Intel limitation, }but which others (e.g. Sequent) have demonstrated is really }a limitation of the approach used to solve the problem. } }I actually rather doubt that it will beat NT performance, since }free software projects appear to have a Roche limit over a certain }level of complexity that prevents them from doing some things. It }has been a tendancy of many commercial companies, fearing open }source, to drive increasing complexity into IETF standards (IMO, }without technical necessity) in order to protect their shrinking }domain without having to actually confront the other commercial }companies eating into their market. } } } Terry Lambert } terry@lambert.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200008180321.VAA19373>