From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760568AbaGEDYO (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 23:24:14 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com ([74.125.82.171]:65488 "EHLO mail-we0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760543AbaGEDYK (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 23:24:10 -0400 Message-ID: <1404530647.5148.21.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: Scalability Question From: Mike Galbraith To: Nick Krause Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 05:24:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 16:40 -0400, Nick Krause wrote: > I am curious after reading some outdated kernel papers, how scalable > is the kernel of > late? I am curious mostly in memory and cpu subsystems as file systems > will change > based on user's choice. You can currently configure for up to 8192 CPUs. I've not seen any benchmark data whatsoever for huge boxen, have no idea where which subsystem crumbles. SGI asked for the increase to 8192, so presumably do manage to squeeze acceptable performance out of size XXXXL boxen. -Mike