On 10/31/2013 08:46 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Prarit Bhargava
> On 10/30/2013 07:50 PM, David Strauss wrote:
>> I was, indeed, drawing an arbitrary line, but we must draw the line somewhere.
>> Maybe Fedora 23+ have it set far higher. It's easy to adapt over time to
>> the high end of commodity servers while still being desktop-friendly; we
>> have a long support window.
> Fair enough, but my question is, then, why 512? If it is completely arbitrary
> why not jump it to a high number that people have requested before and be done
> with it? Even 1024 would be acceptable to the HPC users I've talked with FWIW.
> Josh, would you be okay with 1024?
Maybe? That seems like it would be fairly reasonable, but knowing
what the overhead numbers are would help. To be clear, right now we
have things set thusly for NR_CPUS:
I believe our specific discussion here is about x86_64. I don't think
we're going to change i686 to anything higher than what it's set at
Agreed -- I think we can safely say 32 is good enough for i686 :). Let me do
some work on getting you numbers for x86_64 for 128 vs 1024.
I'll try and get this done in the next few days ... I'm still coming off the
2013 WORLD SERIES CHAMPION BOSTON RED SOX high. :)