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

Reply via email to