On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:36:21 -0600, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But there is one thing in VMs that are actually very cool. That is the > amount of cpu cycles used. So instead of of 10 seconds of requests, you > could actually do 50000 request, and check the CPU usage for each > implementation. You also gain ease of repeatability and therefore provability. If you can provide a VM image than anyone can access (take a look at http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder/ as a simple way to build out and make available an image for a large list of VM clients) it's a lot harder for them to contend a particular benchmark than it would be otherwise. It's also a lot easier to allow people to "see for yourself." > It is not about the maximum performance on a Dell1950, because a kernel > can make a difference. It is how much performance is required to deliver > peak performance. And from a business perspective, "How many servers of type X are needed to handle the load of site Y?" is an invaluable tool. That's easy an easy equation to evaluate when you have consistent numbers to build from. -- /M:D M. David Peterson Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: (206) 999-0588 http://3rdandUrban.com | http://amp.fm | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | http://news.oreilly.com/m-david-peterson/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
