similar to: scaling with SMP

On 11/06/2014 13:59, Roy Spliet wrote: > Dear Mr. Dew, > > I hereby wish to propose the X.org EVoC project "REclock - > Reverse-engineer and implement NVA3/5/8 Voltage- and Frequency Scaling > in Nouveau" for which I am willing to participate, and apply for the > associated funding. Full details below or on > http://nouveau.spliet.org/evoc.html . For any further

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Christian Balzer <chibi at gol.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:49:39 -0500 KT Walrus wrote: > >> I just read this blog: https://mrotaru.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/scaling-to-12-million-concurrent-connections-how-migratorydata-did-it/

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:49:39 -0500 KT Walrus wrote: > I just read this blog: https://mrotaru.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/scaling-to-12-million-concurrent-connections-how-migratorydata-did-it/ <https://mrotaru.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/scaling-to-12-million-concurrent-connections-how-migratorydata-did-it/> about scaling to 12 Million Concurrent Connections on a single server and it got me

On 22 Feb 2017, at 17.07, KT Walrus <kevin at my.walr.us> wrote: > > I have seen proposals for a new client protocol called JMAP that seem to be all about running a mail server at scale like an NGINX https web server can scale. That got me thinking about wether there is anything fundamental about IMAP that causes it to be difficult to scale. After looking into Dovecot?s current IMAP

I just read this blog: https://mrotaru.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/scaling-to-12-million-concurrent-connections-how-migratorydata-did-it/ <https://mrotaru.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/scaling-to-12-million-concurrent-connections-how-migratorydata-did-it/> about scaling to 12 Million Concurrent Connections on a single server and it got me thinking. Would it be possible to scale Dovecot IMAP server

Hi list, I'm now considering to buy a new server for an Asterisk installation, since I've been kindly advised<http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2007-October/198146.html>not to use an old server for a mission critical app... Well, playing around in Dell's, HP's and IBM's online stores, I've noticed a lot of Discounts or even FREE upgrades from Dual to

From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu at huawei.com> Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one interrupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call

From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu at huawei.com> Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one interrupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call

From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu at huawei.com> Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one interrupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call

List users, Using Asterisk in an inbound call center environment has led us to pushing the limits of vertical scaling. In order to treat each caller fairly and to utilize our agents as efficiently as possible, it is desirable to configure each client as a single queue. As far as I know, Asterisk's queues cannot be distributed across servers, so the size of the largest queue we service

Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one interrupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call interrupt. Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at

Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one interrupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call interrupt. Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at

Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one interrupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call interrupt. Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at

Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one intterupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call interrupt. Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at

Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one intterupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call interrupt. Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at

Commit 9a46ad6d6df3b54 "smp: make smp_call_function_many() use logic similar to smp_call_function_single()" has unified the way to handle single and multiple cross-CPU function calls. Now only one intterupt is needed for architecture specific code to support generic SMP function call interfaces, so kill the redundant single function call interrupt. Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36 Summary: Possible SMP-race in rule handling (or other memorycorrupting thing) Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: other OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component:

On 23 Feb 2017, at 23.00, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > > I mainly see such external databases as additional reasons for things to break. And even if not, additional extra layers of latency. Oh, just thought that I should clarify this and I guess other things I said. I think there are two separate things we're possibly talking about in here: 1) Temporary state: This is

Hello, I've just run out of memory on a dual xeon with 5GB ram, considering there should have been around 4GB free (not counting buffers and cache)... this is unusual. Now after it OOM'ed I tried running top and memory usage was fine (around 1GB of 5, no swap usage of 12GB). So I thought it was a temporary thing, but processes kept on OOM'ing for no understandable reason... while

In a previous mail, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, > since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long > period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be > denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any > softlockup message would be completely spurious. I wonder