[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jeff> How many are more than "a few?" > > I don't know. What can you do today in commercial stuff, 16 processors? > How many cores per die, two? Four? We're still talking < 100 processors > with access to the same chunk of memory. For the OP's problem that's still > 10,000 users per processor. Maybe that's small enough, but if not, he'll > need multiple processes across machines that don't share memory.
Sure, multiple machines are probably the right approach for the OP; I didn't mean to disagree with that. I just don't think they are "the only practical way for a multi-process application to scale beyond a few processors," like you said. For many (most?) applications in need of serious scalability, multi-processor servers are preferable. IBM has eServers available with up to 64 processors each, and Sun sells E25Ks with 72 processors apiece. I like to work on those sorts of machine when possible. Of course, they're not right for every application, especially since they're so expensive. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
