Re: RT patch acceptance

[Bill Huey (hui) <bhuey@lnxw.com>]

On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 03:34:17AM -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 03:22:59AM -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 07:55:00AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > You're on crack as usual, but today you go much too far.  XFS doesn't
> > > ahave anything to do with you're so Hard RT pipedreams.  The so-called
> > > 'RT' subvolulme only provides a more determinitistic block allocator.
> > > GRIO doesn't require any RT guarantees, it's entirely about I/O scheduling
> > > and has been ported to various operating systems with sane locking semantics.
> > 
> > I actually when I talked to the SGI folks about 5 years ago at Usenix
> > I got a different story where they really were thinking about hacking
> > a tasklet to handle some of this IO stuff going. So I'm going to bet
> > that you're wrong about this based on that conversation.
> 
> I'd like to add that 16x way SGI boxes can play and record something like
> 300+ individual streams that are frame accurate. An SGI buddy of mine
> mention that CNN actually uses such a box to handle all of their video
> data in real time.
 
Also, to continue this open minded discussion and reply of yours. How do
you think IO is submitted to a system like that so that those guarantees
are met ? Obivously some kind deterministic mechanism is pushing those
requests to the wire.

bill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/