Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:47:16 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Doug" <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: 3C905 versus Intel Etherexpress PRO/100?! Message-ID: <000001beccd1$a2a3af60$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907121810590.9330-100000@dt054n86.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> *Nod* The argument I seemed to be hearing from the poster I > responded to was, "Why add that optimization to the code if it only buys > us 2%?" A 2% optimization that makes things more complicated would probably be a bad tradeoff on a server or server OS. Cleanliness of implementation is a major priority there, because you really do need rock-solid reliability and maintainability. That tends to stress straightforward design and punish excessive cleverness. I don't particularly care if I have to reboot my desktop. But it really irritates me if I have to reboot my servers. It irritates me more if they reboot themselves. However, I have to admit that while I understand this and agree with it, I make 'dangerous' optimizations to server code all the time. All of those 2% optimizations eventually add up to 20% optimizations -- and that does matter. And after enough time and testing, the new and dangerous code becomes less new and, hopefully, less dangerous. If I were comparing two operating systems for use as a web server, would I care about a 15% performance difference? Would that mean anywhere near as much the difference between 99.9 percent uptime and 99.95 percent? DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001beccd1$a2a3af60$021d85d1>