In world where most work loads are containerized, and where each container can be pinned to numa region doesn't it really matter?
Facebook has really really good talks about managing process scheduling at scale, talking about how they leverage cgroups to do the right thing.
kubernetes seems to not give a fuck. they have their own resource systems they cooked up. shit gets scheduled in a huge massive cgroup. any order or control is userland, totally ignorant to the kernel control. there's not hierarchies, no priorities, everything is absolute, schedule or die. it's such a ginormous piece of shit, so in unbelievably willfully ignorant to all the good kernel technology that exists. it tries to make sure the kernel never has a role & that's just a huge mistake, just deeply tragic.
one noteable side effect ofany is that while the the kernel has many ways to make multi-tenant scheduling fairly reasonable, kubernetes has a variety of wild hair brained schemes, all of which detour around how easy the job would be if different pods could be scheduled in different cgroups. but that's somehow too blindingly obvious for kubernetes, which instead tries to mediate what to run entirely by itself.
If you are scaling horizontally, NUMA is the superior fabric than Ethernet or Infiniband (100Gbps)
Horizontal scaling seems to favor NUMA. 1000 chips over Ethernet is less efficient than 500 dual socket nodes over Ethernet. Anything you can do over Ethernet seems easier and cheaper over NUMA instead.
But in general if you can't scale horizontally at 10 gbps, you're in for a world of hurt. Numa gets you to 8x scale at best on very expensive very exotic hardware. And then you hit the wall.
Dual socket is a cheap, easy, and common. If only to recycle fans, power supplies and racks, it seems useful.
The advantage of memory bandwidth vs Ethernet for scaling to x2 really doesn't matter. If it did, you're not horizontally scalable and at best you buy a little time before you hit the wall.
If the price difference isn't much, I would heavily prefer single socket.
Dual socket has numerous advantages in density and rack space. The fact that performance is better is pretty much icing on the cake.
It's easier to manage 500 dual socket servers than 1000 single socket servers. Less equipment, higher utilization of parts, etc. Etc.
To suggest dual socket NUMA is going away is... just very unlikely to me. I don't see what the benefits would be at all. Not just performance, but also routine maintenance issues (power, Ethernet, local storage, etc etc)
The root article is discussing rewriting code to fit on FPGAs. If NUMA is too complex then... I dunno. The FPGA argument seems dead on arrival.
This is at least my experience, though I am no expert.