Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large

From: Dave Hansen (haveblue@us.ibm.com)
Date: Sun Jun 23 2002 - 03:31:35 EST

Next message: clock@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz: "kmalloc size too large"
Previous message: Michael Clark: "Re: FW: netgear ga621"
In reply to: Christopher E. Brown: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large"
Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Christopher E. Brown wrote:
> Do you mean independent in that there are 2 sets of 4 slots each
> detected as a seperate PCI bus, or independent in that each set of 4
> had *direct* access to the cpu side, and *does not* access via a
> PCI:PCI bridge?

No PCI:PCI bridges, at least for NUMA-Q.
http://telia.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/lse/linux_on_numaq.pdf

-- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com

- 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/

Next message: clock@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz: "kmalloc size too large"
Previous message: Michael Clark: "Re: FW: netgear ga621"
In reply to: Christopher E. Brown: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large"
Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:26 EST