Re: Does Solaris really scale this well?

From: Ruth Ivimey-Cook (
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 18:03:24 EST

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Matti Aarnio wrote:

>On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 11:53:16AM -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
>> From:
>> Scott McNealy:
>> "When you take a 99-way UltraSPARC III machine and add a 100th processor,
>> you get 94 percent linear scalability. You can't get 94 percent linear
>> scalability on your first Intel chip. It's very, very hard to do, and they
>> have not done it."
> Conditionally... I would like to know the exact architecture,
>and the problem set running in the system to say.
>When you have noncc-NUMA, you have a Beowulf-like setup.
>when you have cc-NUMA ("cc" = cache coherent), things get
>truly hairy...

I've seen scientific reports of scalability that good in non-shared memory
computers (mostly in transputer arrays) where (with a scalable algorithm)
unless you got >90% you were doing something wrong. However, if you insist on
sharing main memory, I still don't believe you can get anywhere near that...
IMO 30% is doing very well once past the first few CPUs.



Ruth Ivimey-Cook
Software engineer and technical writer.

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 23 2002 - 22:00:14 EST