[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensolaris-discuss
Subject:    Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled,
From:       Kyle McDonald <kmcdonald () egenera ! com>
Date:       2010-09-09 16:45:51
Message-ID: 4C890F3F.3020209 () Egenera ! COM
[Download RAW message or body]


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 


On 9/9/2010 10:27 AM, Matthias Pfützner wrote:
> No, I was not talking about that, I simply meant: The E10K had 64
> CPUs and at GA date, Solaris was ready to use 64 CPUs from a single
> kernel... Unlike the IBM 795, which can currently have MORE CPUs
> than AIX is capable of handling... ;-)
>
Yes. I know you weren't talking about that HW. I was taking it
further, and adding how much further than that Solaris scaled.

The E15K I believe eventually got dual core CPU's and so went 128
cores later. Solaris handled that in stride too.

> Yes, I know about all those "single image" things ACROSS boxes, but
> that's not, what I meant in my post... ;-)
>
> Matthias
But the WildCat project would have taken 16 F6900's linked together to
768 cores running 1 instance of Solaris.  1 box or 16, when run like
that it behaves like 1 box.  If you're not in the room looking at the
machine you'd never know it wasn't 1 box.

I thought the fact that Solaris could scale that far in 2002 or so
helped proved your point even further.

  -Kyle


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMiQ8+AAoJEEADRM+bKN5wiNMIALdKqLhWo6o/K7cnidPsho+o
Ty4YYsT0QMCSt4Bn2Q7lq5qaQLm8mC7t3Iq3Rb1/h8QLuF1heYdSIeAk7yCHmaUR
2pnPWip5wmWAS4n6eE3DtTzaPIemIzpMZ8e1AOwpguQwCO/uQ6gstufW5hq6lHah
r+TxSxvuUo+IC3r8e/Ke0TAcO1rYRH5PD2DDKRHxbadTbXNDsI7euhQEfmjuqzl8
wlF7B70iUH69EeWTZ9JBkq14+0S1BhA0L448Co1a5cnFcwQHBwyXYAhe/N46gaCW
XNQ8F6k0uizC3HFCZU3FCPbR8XNEivDr77KmPbppdrLVm1h6yXySs6Qy9D4NC0I=
=8NM6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]