4 ms·

From one of the comments on the article > I think Intel / Microsoft have found a way to interconnects scalable and this comes interesting thought on value of h

From one of the comments on the article > I think Intel / Microsoft have found a way to interconnects scalable and this comes interesting thought on value of have more cores on cpu. Especially if system was designed to be pluggable and if one of cpu's failed than it does not bring entire system down. I think this is an interesting point. If the QPI links on the Xeon Platinum is restricted to 3, I wonder what the 32 socket mesh looks like and what implications that has on availability of the system as a whole if one CPU was to fail. Also, unless these are fully NUMA aware workloads or each socket was dedicated to a VM, the latency has to be terrible for memory access especially if the interconnect is multiple hops away. Clearly it's not going to be a fully connected mesh?

freeqaz 6y ago
This starts to blur the line in my head between the low-level system concepts that your compiler/OS has to think about and the concepts you have to think about for distributes systems. With the hardware systems and interconnects today, we've drawn a line in the sand based on what we've seen work and fail. Something like Redis is fairly well understood for many architectures. But when you have crazy NUMA architectures and different memory models like Intel Optane, what changes? Where do you draw the "new" line for when to use Redis vs keep everything "local" to one box? Will we see a local Kubernetes extension (or new software) that makes building for "massive boxes" easier? Kind of a cool idea.