I didn't need a full throughput benchmark, nor did I need to benchmark the I/O
subsystem or the tape drives. The boss asked a specific question about the CPU
power. I found a program that answered his question to his complete
satisfaction. Now if he had asked for a throughput benchmark, an orchestrated
set of OfficeVision activity would have shown him that IBM had badly
understated the need for increased real memory. But that isn't what he wanted.
/Tom Kern
--- John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CPU power is only ever part of the story; if it's all that matters,
> you'd all be using Xeons or Opterons.
>
> Do a proper benchmark, one that reflects what you want to do. Even if
> your current workload is constrained by CPU, doubling the speed of the
> CPU or doubling the number may well do nothing than find the next
> bottleneck.
>
> In a queue at the theatre, everyone might be lining up to have their
> tickets checked at the door and thereafter being shown quickly to their
> seats. If there's a big queue at the door, getting more ticket checkers
> won't help if you can't also show people to their seats more quickly.
>
> Improving one component of a balanced system just makes the system
> unbalanced.
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
