| To: | alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: help offered |
| From: | "Greg Chesson" <greg@xtp.engr.sgi.com> |
| Date: | Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:04:47 -0800 |
| Cc: | galibert@pobox.com, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) "Re: help offered" (Nov 25, 9:46pm) |
| References: | <m0zimlz-0007U1C@the-village.bc.nu> |
| Sender: | owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com |
One definition of OS scalability that I have not seen
in general use is this:
an OS scales to S number of processors if all S processors
can be executing in the kernel at the same time.
An OS that scales to S active kernels can usually operate hardware
with P processors, where P > S. A system for 1P should
be able to handle 2P with a little work. I expect a lightweight kernel
like Linux to handle 4p with a few locks if on average only one of the
4p is in the kernel. I'd suggest that the LInux kernel is at present
(1S, 4p) or maybe (1.5S, 4P).
g
--
Greg Chesson
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: help offered, Greg Chesson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: help offered, Olivier Galibert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: help offered, Alan Cox |
| Next by Thread: | Re: help offered, pjlahaie |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |