> > > We're adding some machines at work for (essentially) cgi
> > > processing only. It was never considered to use anything less than 2 cpu
> > > boxes, and the current round of testing is going so well that we're
> > > seriously considering 4 cpu boxes because they are not that much more
> > > expensive and our processing is highly CPU bound. I agree that redundancy
> > > is a good thing, but at some point the increased network latency exceends
> > > the point of diminishing returns for the redundancy factor.
> > >
> > > In short, increasing SMP efficiency should really be a priority
> > > for N>2 systems.
> >
> > Agreed. But this is a BIG job, because to do that you have to solve the
> > "one big kernel lock" problem and go to fine-grained locking. This is a
> > non-trivial job.
>
> We don't need fine-grained locks. We would get good performance if we
> could get (say) per-subsystem locks.
In my neck of the woods (doing lots of multi-threaded stuff), that is
the definition of 'fine-grained' locks, vs. 'coarse-grained' locks.
What we have now is a big 'coarse-grained' lock. :)
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
