| 1 |
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM, J. Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 01:52:46 PM Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2012, 20:57:24 schrieb J. Roeleveld: |
| 4 |
>> > Even on a system with only 2 sockets, it can be useful to have NUMA |
| 5 |
>> > available. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> or not, because it costs you performance. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> When does it cost performance? |
| 10 |
> In all situations? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It adds some additional logic to memory allocation (put an allocation |
| 13 |
near the process that uses it) and to process scheduling (keep the |
| 14 |
process near its memory, but bump it to a more distant idle core if |
| 15 |
necessary). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In all honestly, it's not a performance loss you're likely to notice, |
| 18 |
unless you're so in need of squeezing out every spare cycle that you |
| 19 |
most definitely _have_ hardware where there are disconnected memory |
| 20 |
banks. I'm not convinced it's even measurable for us mundanes and our |
| 21 |
hardware. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>> And while the starting questions were not stupid this thread is overflowing |
| 25 |
>> with stupid answers. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Matter of opinion... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Indeed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
:wq |
Archives