Mark Guzdial <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:50 AM -0300 4/27/00, Gerardo Richarte wrote:
> >Mark Guzdial wrote:
> >
> > What I was thinking, is: if STOMP (the testing engine) is not
> >fast enough, then,
> >can it really test something related to speed on a sevrer faster
> >that it? Doesn't STOMP
> >has an upper limit in speed testing becouse it's implemented in Squeak?
>
> Network speed is always slower than processor speed. That's not an
> issue. Even wimpy processors can swamp a T1. More, it's the issue
> of using multiple client processors to see how much the server can
> take.
>
On a 10 MBit/s network, yes. It seems, though, that multiple
Squeak-level buffer copies are enough make a server slower than a *100
MBit* network.... After all, 100 MBit is an order of magnitude closer to
the raw memory-access speed of a computer. (which figure I don't know
offhand; does anyone? I want to say 40 MB/s which would be 3200 MBit/s,
but it might be faster than that)
On the other hand, Comanche *should* be able to transfer a file at 100
MBit/s. If anyone has time to work on this, BufferStream looks like a
good candidate for optimization. For example, instead of having a single
buffer, it could have a list of buffers and thus avoid a lot of copying.
-Lex
