On 10/30/2013 07:32 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/30/2013 02:10 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 10:51 -0700, David Strauss wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and >>>>> petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in >>>>> heterogeneous environments, etc. >>>> >>>> The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines. >>> >>> Or simply, sites so big can care for their own kernel builds most >>> probably, or seek for commercial support. >> >> Why limit it so low? If we're thinking about going big, well, GO BIG. >> >> Users of Fedora want to support these systems out-of-the-box so they can get an >> idea if their systems work. Stopping at 512 just seems too low these days. >> >> We're talking about saving a very small amount of memory by not going to 4096 .. > > Remind me how much again? IIRC, it was around 2MB additional runtime > overhead to set MAX_CPUS to that, right? That's very small on > servers, not so small on cloud. Right, I think that was about it... it may be a little less than that. I wonder, however, how many people are actually using a bleeding-edge fedora kernel for memory-critical cloud purposes? I have a feeling that it's in the same order of magnitude of people booting fedora on systems with greater than 512 cpus. P. > > josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
