Serving static content takes a small amount of CPU, especially when not using IDE drives. Yes, 70% of the files are static, but they likely consume only about 5% of the total processing time.
What I'm saying is that Tux isn't needed or even a good thing for 99.9% of the sites out there. It isn't needed unless you're running an site of almost all static pages on a server that is way too mall on a fat network connection.
Capacity for servers is generally bounded by dynamic processing workload and network bandwidth, not suffling bytes from the drive to the network card. If it is, you're pushing way too hard for a live server.
Take slash, for example. If apache was 10 times faster, they would still need exactly as many server as they have now.
Only a site that serves ONLY static pages will benefit, but then for static pages even the slowest web servers can saturate all but the fastest network connections.
Why are we pushing for faster and faster web server software?
When the Mindcraft fiasco first erupted, the standard response was "What does it matter, it's already fast enough to saturate the network?" That hasn't changed.
The speed of the web server itself doesn't even register on the radar. It's the dynmic part of the sites and the network itself that are slow, folks. If you have to serve up pages 0.05 seconds faster or you fail, you're too close to the edge of the cliff already.
Does anybody else see this a partial victory for the open source movement? Okay, so you can only look, but the free software movement got Microsoft to open it's code for outside peer review.
Think about that! How likely was this a few years ago?
I wonder if Gibson is deriving some of his inspiration not from Japan, but from where he lives in Vancouver. Vancouver a very large and successfull oriental population. Wander around the malls and you see Mobile Girls, at home here as if they were in Japan.
If you're in any sort of reputable business the cost of spamming is not just a server, bandwidth and admin time.
The damage done to the reputation of the company, and the hassle from the annoyed recipients will cost you far more. If you're selling something they will have SOME way to get a hold of you.
If that doesn't convince them, carefully read Death March by Ed Yourdon this weekend.
I agree pretty much completely. I would add an extra step in there to figure out if the straight line speed of a C++ Apache module was worth the portability and difficulty of distributed processing penalty.
My instincts would say sacrifice the straight line speed for something in Java that can be easily distributed, but I have absolutely nothing to base that on. Either way, I think you nailed it.
Even assuming developers can even agree what a "reasonably intelligent" program is, I don't think most applications are reasonably intelligent, if for no other reason than design goals change.
For example, what they have right now may have been a great design if it was intended for a small audience. Small, simple and fast. But if the goal shifts, all of the sudden the current design is no longer right, even though it's still "reasonably intelligent".
Even assuming two similar designs, the language doesn't make that big of a difference. Even going from the slowest to the fastest is only a factor of two or three. And if it's only a factor of two or three generally the effort is better spend on hardware, which speeds up everything and not just one application.
We live in an age of where orders of magnitude growth is common. This will change, but until then we have to plan for incredible growth and a simple language change alone isn't going to cut it.
In reality, language choice has much less of an impact on the speed of an application than the design. but Even a language that's twice as fast can be ten times as slow with a bad design. Some languages make certain designs easier to express, just pick a language that lets you design the way you want.
The *first* thing you need to do is make the design is right. No matter how fast the language is, the number of new users and new features will outstrip any incremental improvements. Even if you make it three times as fast eventually there will be three times as many users.
The only lasting solution is to design it so it scales. If you don't, you'll be chasing the increasing loads by praying incremental optimization and faster new hardware will keep you ahead of the curve. If you build a successful site, it probably won't.
> In the example you provided--hydroelectic power
> plant--is definatley a low polution power
> plant. However, it is not without serious
> consequences.
Absolutely.
> So if you are advocating electric cars,
> you're advocating coal plants, killing salmon
> and nuclear plants. Suddently doesn't
> sound like a great idea anymore.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying electric cars are better than the alternatives, especially when combined with less damaging forms of power generation.
Oil spills kill those same salmon, even those that receive less memorable attention then the Exxon Valdeez.
Those same salmon are also extremely sensitive to fluctuations in temperature when young, and guess what the greenhouse gases causing by internal combustion engines are doing? Yup, almost litterally cooking them in their own streams.
Nobody should be using coal any more, for anything. The effects are just too damaging. Heck, those things give off more ambient radiation than a true nuclear plant (Carbon-14).
1. Yes, it does. So does building cities, roads, factories for computers, laying cable for networks to read Slashdot, etc.
The benefit of hydroelectric power is that the damage is localized so at least the ecology can try to adapt around it. Polution from power plants like gas and coal are everywhere and it's systemic, there's no escaping it.
2. I believe The Three Gorges dam will cause the earth to wobble a bit differently, it's just that big. But tell me how the shifting of the techtonic plates, ocean tides and artic ice flows aren't already causing a wobble.
The less impact we have the better. Unfortunately, most of the populus of the world doesn't seem to care at the moment.
I agree it would be interesting to see a total over-all environmental impact comparison.
The polution from the batteries depends largely on what type they are. Lithium Ion are quite nasty, NiCad a little less and NiMH less still. The good thing is that batteries can be recycled - gas can't.
Batteries have come a long, long way in the last while. Capacities increase while weight and size decrease. It's especially obvious with electric remote control aircraft where they're put through some tough use. High current 2400MaH NiCads that weight 2oz in a sub-C package are common, as are 3000MaH NiMH cells.
No, they're extras are not free - you just don't notice their impact. Who would notice even 10% worse gas milage? When the gets empty, we fill it up.
Very likely they wouldn't be noticed on an electric, as long as it has a decent range. When the cells run try, we'll charge 'em up and not think that we went 10 kms less between charges.
Too bad nuclear scares the crap out of everybody, more reactors like the CANDU would make for way less polution. Want to get irradiated? Stand next to a coal plant and bask in the Carbon-14.
Several posts have mentioned that electric cars just move polution. They argue what used to be generated in cars will be created at power plants. This is true, but wrong.
The fact is, there will be LESS polution generated at the power plants. Besides being more efficient at converting fuels to power, not every power plant is poluting. For example, us drivers in hydroelectric rich British Columbia (Motto: Keeping California's Lights Burning) would be able to enjoy guilt-free driving right now.
The worst case is that some polution will still be generated at the plants, but at last there will be much less of it. More importantly, the the power is produced in centralized locations. This means if the power plants become 5% more efficient all of the EXISTING vehicles create less polution.
Not to mention that as more power plants shift away from nasty sources of energy like coal, every electric cars on the road will become truely polution-free almost overnight.
Why didn't they think of this before now? Surely it's not like cramming more stuff into the existing signal is a new technique - it's we got color television after all.
While I like the start-fresh approach, there's a lot to be gained by piggybacking the signals. At least temporarily.
The most important thing is to keep things portable across databases. The biggest danger with the high end database is their vendor-specific extensions keep you locked in. Once you've gone Oracle and done all the Oracleish things, it's hard to undo that. I fell into that trap with Informix.
Start small and keep it portable. Chances are that a solution like PostgreSQL will work quite well. If for some reason you start hitting a wall, it should be easy to move up if you were careful.
And that's what it's all about. Stay flexible, because it's a dynamic world.
The problem with micropayments and substriptions is that the net is huge. I mean really, really huge. If you are going to charge money or ask for "donations" you need something the users can't get for free easily somewhere else.
This means you have to be different or better than the other guys.
Ad you have to provide you're worth it to the users before they will pay. I will not shell out even a tiny bit of money for something on just a promise that it's cool. Show me first, maybe even let me decide if it's worth the money after I've already seen it.
Re:As a television licence payer...
on
Hope For H2G2
·
· Score: 3
I've talked to the guy in person for a good half hour, and watched an interview take with him place shortly after that.
He has grandious plans for a HG2G movie that still haven't been realized after many, many years of trying. He does seem to have lots of ideas for new books, but I'm not sure he will be able to get his mind off the movie to be able to write one.
These things have one flaw that will be hard to overcome - nobody wants two powerful fans blasting toward their head. It would be seriously uncomfortable to have 90 mph winds directed at your face.
Slashdot Mirror
Serving static content takes a small amount of CPU, especially when not using IDE drives. Yes, 70% of the files are static, but they likely consume only about 5% of the total processing time.
What I'm saying is that Tux isn't needed or even a good thing for 99.9% of the sites out there. It isn't needed unless you're running an site of almost all static pages on a server that is way too mall on a fat network connection.
Capacity for servers is generally bounded by dynamic processing workload and network bandwidth, not suffling bytes from the drive to the network card. If it is, you're pushing way too hard for a live server.
Take slash, for example. If apache was 10 times faster, they would still need exactly as many server as they have now.
Only a site that serves ONLY static pages will benefit, but then for static pages even the slowest web servers can saturate all but the fastest network connections.
Why are we pushing for faster and faster web server software?
When the Mindcraft fiasco first erupted, the standard response was "What does it matter, it's already fast enough to saturate the network?" That hasn't changed.
The speed of the web server itself doesn't even register on the radar. It's the dynmic part of the sites and the network itself that are slow, folks. If you have to serve up pages 0.05 seconds faster or you fail, you're too close to the edge of the cliff already.
Does anybody else see this a partial victory for the open source movement? Okay, so you can only look, but the free software movement got Microsoft to open it's code for outside peer review.
Think about that! How likely was this a few years ago?
I wonder if Gibson is deriving some of his inspiration not from Japan, but from where he lives in Vancouver. Vancouver a very large and successfull oriental population. Wander around the malls and you see Mobile Girls, at home here as if they were in Japan.
If you're in any sort of reputable business the cost of spamming is not just a server, bandwidth and admin time.
The damage done to the reputation of the company, and the hassle from the annoyed recipients will cost you far more. If you're selling something they will have SOME way to get a hold of you.
If that doesn't convince them, carefully read Death March by Ed Yourdon this weekend.
I agree pretty much completely. I would add an extra step in there to figure out if the straight line speed of a C++ Apache module was worth the portability and difficulty of distributed processing penalty.
My instincts would say sacrifice the straight line speed for something in Java that can be easily distributed, but I have absolutely nothing to base that on. Either way, I think you nailed it.
Even assuming developers can even agree what a "reasonably intelligent" program is, I don't think most applications are reasonably intelligent, if for no other reason than design goals change.
For example, what they have right now may have been a great design if it was intended for a small audience. Small, simple and fast. But if the goal shifts, all of the sudden the current design is no longer right, even though it's still "reasonably intelligent".
Even assuming two similar designs, the language doesn't make that big of a difference. Even going from the slowest to the fastest is only a factor of two or three. And if it's only a factor of two or three generally the effort is better spend on hardware, which speeds up everything and not just one application.
We live in an age of where orders of magnitude growth is common. This will change, but until then we have to plan for incredible growth and a simple language change alone isn't going to cut it.
To make up for my transgression, and horrible editing in my post, I'll add my few:
* We're running a site with a few million hits per day, and we're considering switching from Apache to IIS because we heard it was faster. Thoughts?
* Should be move from BSD to Linux because we can by CDs at our local drug store?
* Bruce Perens or Natalie Portman?
* What's the better breakfast cereal: Hot grits or Glorious MEEEPT?
In reality, language choice has much less of an impact on the speed of an application than the design. but Even a language that's twice as fast can be ten times as slow with a bad design. Some languages make certain designs easier to express, just pick a language that lets you design the way you want.
The *first* thing you need to do is make the design is right. No matter how fast the language is, the number of new users and new features will outstrip any incremental improvements. Even if you make it three times as fast eventually there will be three times as many users.
The only lasting solution is to design it so it scales. If you don't, you'll be chasing the increasing loads by praying incremental optimization and faster new hardware will keep you ahead of the curve. If you build a successful site, it probably won't.
Consider Slashdot a classic case to study.
> In the example you provided--hydroelectic power
> plant--is definatley a low polution power
> plant. However, it is not without serious
> consequences.
Absolutely.
> So if you are advocating electric cars,
> you're advocating coal plants, killing salmon
> and nuclear plants. Suddently doesn't
> sound like a great idea anymore.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying electric cars are better than the alternatives, especially when combined with less damaging forms of power generation.
Oil spills kill those same salmon, even those that receive less memorable attention then the Exxon Valdeez.
Those same salmon are also extremely sensitive to fluctuations in temperature when young, and guess what the greenhouse gases causing by internal combustion engines are doing? Yup, almost litterally cooking them in their own streams.
Nobody should be using coal any more, for anything. The effects are just too damaging. Heck, those things give off more ambient radiation than a true nuclear plant (Carbon-14).
1. Yes, it does. So does building cities, roads, factories for computers, laying cable for networks to read Slashdot, etc.
The benefit of hydroelectric power is that the damage is localized so at least the ecology can try to adapt around it. Polution from power plants like gas and coal are everywhere and it's systemic, there's no escaping it.
2. I believe The Three Gorges dam will cause the earth to wobble a bit differently, it's just that big. But tell me how the shifting of the techtonic plates, ocean tides and artic ice flows aren't already causing a wobble.
The less impact we have the better. Unfortunately, most of the populus of the world doesn't seem to care at the moment.
I agree it would be interesting to see a total over-all environmental impact comparison.
The polution from the batteries depends largely on what type they are. Lithium Ion are quite nasty, NiCad a little less and NiMH less still. The good thing is that batteries can be recycled - gas can't.
Batteries have come a long, long way in the last while. Capacities increase while weight and size decrease. It's especially obvious with electric remote control aircraft where they're put through some tough use. High current 2400MaH NiCads that weight 2oz in a sub-C package are common, as are 3000MaH NiMH cells.
No, they're extras are not free - you just don't notice their impact. Who would notice even 10% worse gas milage? When the gets empty, we fill it up.
Very likely they wouldn't be noticed on an electric, as long as it has a decent range. When the cells run try, we'll charge 'em up and not think that we went 10 kms less between charges.
Too bad nuclear scares the crap out of everybody, more reactors like the CANDU would make for way less polution. Want to get irradiated? Stand next to a coal plant and bask in the Carbon-14.
Kind of like from server to desktops and back to servers. Coal generators on rails to cars and back to generators.
Several posts have mentioned that electric cars just move polution. They argue what used to be generated in cars will be created at power plants. This is true, but wrong.
The fact is, there will be LESS polution generated at the power plants. Besides being more efficient at converting fuels to power, not every power plant is poluting. For example, us drivers in hydroelectric rich British Columbia (Motto: Keeping California's Lights Burning) would be able to enjoy guilt-free driving right now.
The worst case is that some polution will still be generated at the plants, but at last there will be much less of it. More importantly, the the power is produced in centralized locations. This means if the power plants become 5% more efficient all of the EXISTING vehicles create less polution.
Not to mention that as more power plants shift away from nasty sources of energy like coal, every electric cars on the road will become truely polution-free almost overnight.
Why didn't they think of this before now? Surely it's not like cramming more stuff into the existing signal is a new technique - it's we got color television after all.
While I like the start-fresh approach, there's a lot to be gained by piggybacking the signals. At least temporarily.
Where you get everything vintage, of course: Value Village.
I've often seen piles of Atari 2600 cartridges in there, the odd Coleco, a few C64s, etc.
The most important thing is to keep things portable across databases. The biggest danger with the high end database is their vendor-specific extensions keep you locked in. Once you've gone Oracle and done all the Oracleish things, it's hard to undo that. I fell into that trap with Informix.
Start small and keep it portable. Chances are that a solution like PostgreSQL will work quite well. If for some reason you start hitting a wall, it should be easy to move up if you were careful.
And that's what it's all about. Stay flexible, because it's a dynamic world.
When the computer is infected by a virus does that mean I got bit by chiggers and have to go find the mud?
Life is an Adventure.
As your screen resolution increases the size of banner ads start approaching zero.
Just remember to increase the size of your fonts to compensate.
The problem with micropayments and substriptions is that the net is huge. I mean really, really huge. If you are going to charge money or ask for "donations" you need something the users can't get for free easily somewhere else.
This means you have to be different or better than the other guys.
Ad you have to provide you're worth it to the users before they will pay. I will not shell out even a tiny bit of money for something on just a promise that it's cool. Show me first, maybe even let me decide if it's worth the money after I've already seen it.
I've talked to the guy in person for a good half hour, and watched an interview take with him place shortly after that.
He has grandious plans for a HG2G movie that still haven't been realized after many, many years of trying. He does seem to have lots of ideas for new books, but I'm not sure he will be able to get his mind off the movie to be able to write one.
These things have one flaw that will be hard to overcome - nobody wants two powerful fans blasting toward their head. It would be seriously uncomfortable to have 90 mph winds directed at your face.