From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760478AbaGEDoo (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 23:44:44 -0400 Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com ([209.85.128.181]:53045 "EHLO mail-ve0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760395AbaGEDon (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 23:44:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1404530647.5148.21.camel@marge.simpson.net> Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 05:44:42 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Scalability Question From: Richard Weinberger To: Nick Krause Cc: Mike Galbraith , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Nick Krause wrote: > The most powerful super computer runs Ubuntu with over 3.2 million cores. These kind of computers don't run a single kernel. See grid computing. > There fore I can state that Linux is very good at scaling as I have seem > the other side with embedded systems. > Cheers Nick > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Mike Galbraith > wrote: >> 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 I am curious after reading some outdated kernel papers, how scalable 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 >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Thanks, //richard