mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ronald Bultje <rbultje@ronald.bitfreak.net>
To: "reiser.angus" <reiser.angus@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux scalability?
Date: 18 May 2001 10:30:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <990174686.12881.18.camel@tux.bitfreak.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <990173560.6346.0.camel@adslgw>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105180914560.29042-100000@iq.rulez.org>  <990173560.6346.0.camel@adslgw>

On 18 May 2001 10:12:34 +0200, reiser.angus wrote:
> > However, taking a closer look, it turns out, that the above statement
> > holds true only for 1 and 2 processor machines. Scalability already
> > suffers at 4 processors, and at 8 processors, TUX 2.0 (7500) gets beaten
> > by IIS 5.0 (8001), and these were measured on the same kind of box!
> not really the same box
> look at the disk subsystem
> 7 x 9GB 10KRPM Drives and 1 x 18GB 15KRPM (html+log & os) for Win2000
> 5 x 9GB 10KRPM Drives (html+log+os) for TUX 2.0
> 
> this is sufficient for a such difference

I read an article about TUX in the dutch C'T a few months ago (nov/dec
2000, I think) - the real difference (according to the article) was the
2.2.x kernel used in TUX. Look at the stats of the website, they used
Redhat 7.0 as base, with kernel 2.2.16. In the C'T, they also used a
2.4-test kernel for TUX, and this one didn't have these "scalibility
problems". The problem seemed to be SMP problems with systems with more
than two cpus in the 2.2.x-based kernel series. 2.4.x kernels didn't
seem to have this problem.

And as far as I know, TUX with 2.4.x kernel was faster than win2k on all
SMP-combinations.

--
Ronald


  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-05-18  8:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-02-18 20:24 Linux OS boilerplate Scott Long
2001-02-18 20:32 ` Jeremy Jackson
2001-02-18 21:46 ` TeknoDragon
2001-02-19  1:47 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-19 10:07   ` Eric W. Biederman
2001-02-22  1:24     ` Tim Wright
2001-02-19  9:03 ` Paul Gortmaker
2001-02-20  4:29   ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-05-18  6:14   ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-05-18  7:24     ` Linux scalability? Sasi Peter
2001-05-18  8:12       ` reiser.angus
2001-05-18  8:30         ` reiser.angus
2001-05-19  8:26         ` Sasi Peter
2001-05-18  8:17       ` Sean Hunter
2001-05-18 21:18         ` Rodger Donaldson
2001-05-19  8:31         ` Sasi Peter
2001-05-21 10:42           ` Sean Hunter
2001-05-18  8:30       ` Ronald Bultje [this message]
2001-05-18  9:05         ` Ronald Bultje
2001-05-18 19:28         ` [OT] " J Sloan
2001-05-18 19:38         ` David S. Miller
2001-05-18 19:46           ` Peter Rival
2001-05-18 21:36             ` J Sloan
2001-05-18 19:57           ` David S. Miller
2001-05-18 20:06             ` Peter Rival
2001-05-18 20:13             ` David S. Miller
2001-05-18 18:07 Dan Kegel
2001-05-21 14:25 Dan Kegel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=990174686.12881.18.camel@tux.bitfreak.net \
    --to=rbultje@ronald.bitfreak.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=reiser.angus@wanadoo.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®