From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <fde58473f8a89cc1e028b1ac3ab8c0c3@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:09:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1216240701.4327.22.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8 cores
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e9020506-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 18:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> coming as no suprise, the pc port of plan 9
>> does work just fine with 8 cores.
>>
>> mpls; cat /dev/sysstat
>>           0       14271      213501        3399        1116           0           0           0          99           0
>
> Looking at the output 99% is idle time. Have you had a chance to
> look at this system when it is fully loaded with something
> meaningful?

not really.  a kernel compile from ramfs took about 2.9s with an
average of more than 3s of cpu used for every second of real time.  a
compile from the fs over a gigabit link took about 1s longer, but used
far less cpu.

neither is particular impressive, but i'm not using a great percentage
of the cycles available ( ~3/8) and i am using the slowest processor on
the sheet and, due to my misreading of the datasheet, i have only half
the memory channels populated.

did you have anything specific in mind?

- erik