Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Sep 2003 00:43:56 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: Scaling noise |
| |
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
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |