Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:22:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: mavery@mail.otherwhen.com, kris@airnet.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: 3C905 versus Intel Etherexpress PRO/100?! Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907121810590.9330-100000@dt054n86.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <000001beccc7$b6f21830$021d85d1@youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > > A fundamental design element for a server OS (as opposed to a
> > > desktop OS) is to always assume that *every* cpu cycle is valuable.
>
> Funny, this claim is the opposite of what I've usually heard. Generally,
> for desktop use, performance is considered more important that stability or
> reliability, which is why people often overclock processors in their
> desktops.
Well I was thinking more along the lines of, "Sure, I'll put X and
massive graphical screensavers on my desktop because I'm the only one who
has to wait if that slows it down." As opposed to, "Don't run anything on
the server that doesn't absolutely have to be there because if that slows
down it affects my customer's perception of my service."
Overclocking is an interesting angle to approach this from though.
I overclock(ed) my desktop and server processors for my little home
system, but I'd never overclock a machine I didn't have daily physical
contact with because the possible damage from heat (resulting in big down
time) outweighs the possible benefits.
> Whereas, for server use, performance (I'm talking 5% or 10%, not factors of
> 2) takes a back seat to almost everything else. You can always buy a faster
> CPU, or another CPU, for your server. You can always add more RAM. You are
> far more concerned with things like clean design, extra safety checks to
> prevent crashes, and so on.
*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%?" He has since corrected my impression. The types of decisions
you're talking about are far more likely to come about in terms of, "If we
add this sanity check to the code we take a 5% performance hit, but it
increases reliability from 98% to 99%. In both the desktop and the server
case I'd say go for it, since I don't want avoidable downtime on either
machine.
This is where sun has freebsd beat cold. They may only be
operating at 80% efficiency, but at 99.99% reliability. (Yes I know that
there are exceptions to both cases, I'm talking in the general case.)
Now that I've given everybody plenty to argue about, I'm going to
go buy some pants.
Have a nice night,
Doug
--
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only
nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter
what it does.
-- Will Rogers
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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9907121810590.9330-100000>