On 10/3/07, Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/07, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .. > > Ok one of the things i know is that the big boys engineers are > > actually fighting the os they are running in. windows specifically. > > the native network stack and disk cache sucks. so they used a custom > > disk cache which happens to be similar but not compatible to the linux > > buffer cache and a network stack thats very highly optimised for the > > typical use case for the application. those are the main reason for > > the high performance plus the super dooper optimizations from closed > > source compilers. > > > Well I wasn't thinking about Windows specifically. All of the products > I work with, are cross-platform. > > That's why it sucks to be on Linux sometimes. Because Solaris X86 on > the same hardware performs better, due to use of the Sun Studio > compiler. >
Cant do anything about that. They got there first. But cost? Would you rather buy a large number of commodity hardware? > > > .. > > the election algorithms are all well known algorithms that you can > > find in any thesis or computer scence textbook. > > > > the commit protocols are also well documented for all the known databases. > > same goes for the failover algorithms. > > > > so the differentiator for the big boys are the implementation and nda > > covered deals they have with the os vendor. > > > > what else? > > > > none. > > > > llvm will fix the optimization problem and the os support is already > > solved in linux. > > > > so there. thats why im so gung ho over the closed source boys. > > > I'm not so sure. Many of the things we're working on today have been > known for 20 or 30 years. And yet, a lot of Free Software still sucks. > Of course. The guys who needs these implementations the most are the ones with a lot of cash. But its a matter of preferences. DB based applications specially those based on sql need lots of resources. Those who prefer non db based REST style applications can do the same with cheap commodity hardware. in terms of number of transactions per second and reliability. > Statements like the above, tend to gloss over implementation > difficulties. Proofs of concept are easy. Ironing out all the tiny > bugs is hard. > > I'll believe LLVM when I see it. Still, in the meantime, if you need > the performance, you need to use Intel. Or Sun Studio. > > A compiler license is much cheaper than buying an 8-way server > (instead of a 4-way server) because you're paying a performance tax. oh no. you need the multi processor server to see the benefits anyway. why not use commodity hardware then? they are so cheap nowadays. i find the term "enterprise class hardware" overrated nowadays. it sounds like a marketing gimmick. but thats only me. -- Lay low and nourish in obscurity _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
