On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:49:51PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 23 December 2011 11:11, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > One difference between the 2008 tests and today tests is > > the number of available cpus. ?In 2008, I ran the tests > > on a node with 8 cpus, while today's test used only a > > node with only 4 cpus. ?If this behavior is a scaling > > issue, I can't currently test it. ?But, today's tests > > are certainly encouraging. > > Do you not have access to anything with 8 CPUs in it? It'd be nice to > get clarification that this indeed was fixed.
I have a few nodes with 8 cpus, but those are running 4BSD kernels. I try to keep my kernel and world sync, and by extension the kernel/world on each node is in sync with all other nodes. So, while I took the 4 cpu node off-line and updated it, at the moment I can't take another node off-line unless I do an update across the entire cluster. The update is planned for next year. > Does ULE care (much) if the nodes are hyperthreading or real cores? > Would that play a part in what it tries to schedule/spread? I only have opteron processors in the cluster, if you're referring to Intel's hypertheading technology, I can't look into ULE's behavior with HTT. -- Steve _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
