4 ms·
>You can double this amount of bandwidth with NUMA-aware code, but it will require further engineering. So is this benchmark really useful? Seems like it's eng
by lowbloodsugar 3y ago
>You can double this amount of bandwidth with NUMA-aware code, but it will require further engineering.
So is this benchmark really useful? Seems like it's engineered enough that it probably isn't relevant for most use cases (like running java, go or python services), and not engineered enough so it's not relevant for performant systems like databases. (That said NUMA simply isn't that hard, even with Java which is also NUMA aware).
- acdha 3y agoYes, you always have to know your problem well enough to make sure that you pick a benchmark which is measuring your bottleneck. Most people don’t have this kind of perfect linear read activity but some do, and I think that if I did I’d probably be playing with the thread counts to see whether high-core machines were bottlenecking at some point where diminishing returns kicked in making it more cost-effective to get a second system rather than one really big one.