linux-kernel - Re: Scalability Question

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPDOMVj+KVO7D977gDKz-ZzJuq2wKawjT0E7TphybyYX0QF1rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Jul 2014 23:33:53 -0400
From:	Nick Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Scalability Question

The most powerful super computer runs Ubuntu with over 3.2 million cores.
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
<umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> 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 I am curious after reading some outdated kernel papers, how scalable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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/