From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 13:43:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 13:43:42 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:62860 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 13:43:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:43:54 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Austin Gonyou cc: Alan Cox , Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again Message-ID: <433620000.1022262234@flay> In-Reply-To: <1022261405.9617.39.camel@UberGeek> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I assume that you mean by "not worth using x86" you're referring to say, > degraded performance over other platforms? Well...if you talk > price/performance, using x86 is perfect in those terms since you can buy > more boxes and have a more fluid architecture, rather than building a > monolithic system. Monolithic systems aren't always the best. Just look > at Fermilab! Well, to be honest, with the current mainline kernel on >4Gb x86 machines, we're not talking about slow performance on mainline kernel, we're talking about "falls flat on it's face, in a jibbering heap" (if you actually stress the machine with real workloads). If we apply a bunch of patches, we can get the ostritch to just about fly (most of the time), but we're working towards good performance too ... it's not that far off. Of course, this means that we actually have to get these patches accepted for them to be of much use ;-). -aa kernel works best in this area, on the workloads I've been looking at so far ... this area is very much "under active development" at the moment. M.