[mckilljoy]

I like reading these analyses, although I'm afraid headlines like this oversimplify things and give off the wrong impression. There isn't anything inherently wrong with NUMA, it just isn't useful in this situation.

No technology is a 'silver bullet'. Every workload has a different set of considerations that require a different set of technology to optimize.

[mtdewcmu]

The way it's portrayed is extremely misleading. The headline misses the point -- actually, the article didn't really have a point. It sounds like they didn't get the results they wanted from the project, but tried to make the best of it by highlighting what they did get, which is a jumble of facts that are incoherent and self-contradictory. It's sort of interesting to read, because they did honest research, asked good questions and followed the data, and there is plenty of value in negative results.

The way I read the outcome, NUMA seems to do what it's supposed to. The premise was that remote memory accesses are a performance killer, and forcing threads onto fewer cpus should be a big win. But NUMA came out looking pretty good. Leaving it alone looks like an excellent policy. Consider that google brought in a team of experts for the sole purpose of figuring out how to beat the default behavior of NUMA.