> On Wed 29 Oct 2003 10:19:13 +0100 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | I'm just reading a article in a Belgium magazine wherein a person from > | IBM say's that if a computer has more then 8 prosessors, then we do > | not use Linux anymore because it is not stable. Is this true , and > | have some of you here some experiance whit this? > > I've had Linux running on a 32way box quite happily before now. However, > to be fair, AIX does still seem to do a bit better on the larger boxes. > That'll probably change pretty soon though :) >
I guess it depends on what he meant by stable? I've not seen any stability problems on the 16P and 12P systems I'm testing. Even when the average loads sre large > 258. And I use a setiathome with YASC as the idle load - when the loading goes above 22.5, YASC suspends the 16 seti processes until the load drops below 1.5, where they resume. Thus creating more of a varying dynamic load and keeping the machine from being idle. But that's not to say that there are not areas where some problems may occur. Still, Linux - at least Enterprise style Linux, seems pretty stable on systems over 8P. Bob - QA Curmudgeon. Wacky and bizarre testing(TM) performed while-U-wait. - -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
