From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,LOTS_OF_MONEY,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0f1ecb93 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 19:43:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 812F0A1E1D; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:43:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484E0A1E04; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:43:09 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=thunk.org header.i=@thunk.org header.b=jTVY7NCV; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E495DA1A81; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:43:04 +1000 (AEST) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6847DA1A66 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:43:04 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=23BvVWe0MGpkPWhNuZf9ASBA4coPXSEo/Uert7Z6KmQ=; b=jTVY7NCVrVRHIdr9PocWTGVQU6 2ocfrdjgO1gZvbA4MVsQwUXcj9UlpHRpzGkXAhRBelVoFgElp9yGHJ6QYHmt5RsR7m7u1Zbt6tEJs +0JebNrZzGPaFV/SymYtx8b2LHQgDOYS8Uo4EWsw8H1OLO7flRBWs+p0jmyllOd5C2Sk=; Received: from root (helo=callcc.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fwYH0-0005d1-Fk; Sun, 02 Sep 2018 19:43:02 +0000 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 6F8547A4B95; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 15:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 15:43:01 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Kevin Bowling Message-ID: <20180902194301.GA22518@thunk.org> References: <20180830213407.6DC4718C0A6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20180831213451.r7LAj%ca6c@bitmessage.ch> <20180831215854.GB28971@mcvoy.com> <7ed51612-82d7-90ca-ceaf-37b0c869ff93@kilonet.net> <20180901221933.GA2214@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: Re: [TUHS] SunOS code? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 10:05:06PM -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote: > > Sorry this is just bogus about being weak compared to Solaris. Are > you looking back with rosy glasses or have you scanned the code in the > past couple years? I have and there is nothing particularly special > about Solaris internals here or elsewhere. I haven't looked at Solaris code; I had just *assumed* that if they were selling million dollar E10k's, they would have had NUMA support at *least* as good as SGI's Irix. And it would have been an excuse for their pathetic performance on UP and 2-4 SMP systems. > Keep in mind IBM wants to sell RockHoppers and E980s (4 drawers, 16 > sockets, 768 threads) for dedicated Linux use which have similar > north/south and east/west off chip networks. They have a lot of very > talented people on the firmware, kernel, compilers to make these > things work fast, including Paul. > ... > Where you start going beyond Linux-like NUMA IMO is when you get > Irix-like features of page copying, migration, and multiple advanced > placement policies. One thing to consider is that IBM really only cared about optimizing hardware for DB2, Oracle, and Webshpere. That's one of the reason why you didn't see much in the way of innovative file system work, ala ZFS. There was no business justification for pouring 100+ engineer years to develop a next-generation file systesm --- and they had already done that once already for GPFS, a cluster file system. As far as local disk file system was concerned, the only real business value it had was to serve as a program loader for DB2 and Websphere. :-) (I'm exagerating a little for effect, but *only* a little.) So as far as NUMA was concerned, there was almost certainly not have been much perceived business value in having sophisticated auto-migration for arbitrary workloads in the kernel. Something basic which was good enough for Oracle, DB2, etc., was all that would be needed. (And if you needed to hire consultants from IBM Global Services to mind-meld with the configuration documentation in order to get the best out of your Rockhopper.... well, shucks, darn. :-) At IBM the business people really did make the funding decisions of what to work on. ZFS could have never happened at IBM because no one would have thought that a even a tiny number of IBM's current or potential customer base would abandon AIX or Linux and switch to Solaris, or buy Sun hardware instead of IBM hardware --- just for the sake of ZFS. And that's how decision-makers at IBM really thought. (And to be fair to those decision-makers, IBM is still in business as a free-standing business --- and Sun is not.) - Ted