From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264801AbTIDHwa (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 03:52:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264795AbTIDHw3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 03:52:29 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:36747 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264801AbTIDHw2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 03:52:28 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 00:43:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Larry McVoy cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Scaling noise In-Reply-To: <20030904041600.GA16959@work.bitmover.com> Message-ID: References: <20030903173213.GC5769@work.bitmover.com> <89360000.1062613076@flay> <20030904003633.GA5227@work.bitmover.com> <6130000.1062642088@[10.10.2.4]> <20030904023446.GG5227@work.bitmover.com> <20030904041600.GA16959@work.bitmover.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:47:49PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > Maybe because history has shown over and over again that your pet theory > > > doesn't work. Mine might be wrong but it hasn't been proven wrong. Yours > > > has. Multiple times. > > > > Why companies selling HW should go with this solution? > > Higher profits. And in which way exactly ? You not only didn't make a bare-bone implementation (numbers talk, bullshits walk), but you didn't even make a business case here. This is not cold-fusion stuff Larry, SSI concepts are around by a long time. Ppl didn't buy it, sorry. Beowulf-like clusters have had a moderate success because they're both cheap and scale very well for certain share-zero applications. They didn't buy SSI because of the need of applications remodelling (besides the cool idea of a SSI, share-a-lot applications will still suck piles compared to SMP), that is not very popular in businesses that are the target of these systems. They didn't buy SSI because if they had scalability problems and their app was a share-nada thingy so that they were willing to rewrite it, they'd be already using Beowulf-style clusters. Successfull new hardware (in the really general term) is the one that fits your current solutions/methods by, at the same time, giving you an increased power/features. - Davide