A potential NUMA scheduling solution
Posted Nov 15, 2012 18:24 UTC (Thu) by slamb
In reply to: A potential NUMA scheduling solution
Parent article: A potential NUMA scheduling solution
I don't know about need, but anyone who needs a lot of computing power might prefer N M-package machines to N*M 1-package machines for efficiency's sake.
At Google, we certainly do. I won't reveal anything new, so take a look at this public talk (by Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, always interesting people to follow). Multiple things per machine; their thing alone uses "144 machines, ~2300 cores", or 16 cores/machine.
This sort of configuration makes sense if you have to bin-pack applications with different needs, like a memory-heavy memcached, a CPU-heavy application server, and a disk/SSD-heavy filesystem daemon. Or if you have processes with a lot of fixed overhead to run - better to get as much out of each one as possible. Or if the N M-package machines use less power than the N*M 1-package machines.
to post comments)