On Wed, October 21, 2009 12:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > Device performance should be specified as a minimum assured level of > performance and not as meaningless "peak" ("up to") values. I repeat: > peak values are meaningless.
Seems a little pessimistic to me. Certainly minimum assured values are the basic thing people need to know, but reasonably characterized peak values can be valuable, if the conditions yielding them match possible application usage patterns. The obvious example in electrical wiring is that the startup surge of motors and the short-term over-current potential of circuit breakers actually match each other fairly well, so that most saws (for example) that can run comfortably on a given circuit can actually be *started* on that circuit. Peak performance can have practical applications! Certainly a really carefully optimized "peak" will almost certainly NOT represent a useful possible performance level, and they should always be considered meaningless until you've really proven otherwise. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss