Fine, then you go out and buy XYZ and test it against the $5000 Mac OS X Server G3/400. Until then, jeez louise, keep quiet! As annoying and pointless as "PR benchmarks" may be, at least they tested something.
Sorry, but "the idle speculation of a Linux user" holds less weight with me than "a stacked benchmark cited in a press release." I suspect most people agree. Go test. Then come back, and we can all have fun picking apart your benchmarking setup;-)
periodically creating static HTML files from a dynamic database.
A fully-dynamic system has to read the DB and spew crap out for every user (could be many requests per second!) The theory is that this system is the most "live" (i.e. changes are visible to everyone immediately). The reality is that the hardware requirements of this system are very high for a moderate to high traffic site (Slashdot surely qualifies).
A periodically updated system has to read the DB and spew data (this time to files, not users) only once every 30 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, or whatever seems like a reasonable interval. Compared to running many times per second, this starts to look pretty nice. And you'd be surprised how large you can make the intervals while still maintaining a good user experience. An interval of 2 minutes would be almost indistinguishable from a truly live, dynamic system to most users, and 5 minutes is still completly within the realm of acceptability. The final optimization is to update the bare minimum files that need to be updated on each cycle. That's the real trick, but done right, it can be very efficient (thus allowing you to decrease the update interval even more). Think about it:-)
Oh, and as for corrupted DBs, what DB server are you using?
To keep the non-Mac fanatics from getting the wrong idea: Mac OS X isn't that far away, and Mac OS X Server (which will be much more like what most non-Mac users think Mac OS X is supposed to be: semi-Unix-ish with NeXT frameworks and all that jazz) was just released at MacWorld Expo SF.
I'm sure Carmack will evaluate it soon. He's played with the various development versions of Mac OS X Server and written about it in his.plan, so we'll see what he thinks when he gets his copy of the OS X Server release. And anyone who wants to do Mac OS X ("non-server") development now can do so using OS X Server and only have to make very minor changes when OS X is released in a year or so.
Mac OS (as in Mac OS 7, 8, etc.) has essentially been a lame duck for the past year or so, and with OS X Server out, it's as dead as Win3.1 was when Win95 was released: still installed all over the place, but clearly in the rear view mirror from now on. The idea at Apple, though, is to make it seem like there never was a change, thus OS X (and even OS X Server, to some degree) looks and behaves like the old Mac OS. Don't be fooled, it's a bigger change than even Win3.1 all the way to Win NT. Apple's done this once before, with a full CPU switch (68k to PPC), which was pretty damn impressive, IMO, so I have faith they'll pull this switch nicely too.
As a Mac enthusiast, I beg you to just ignore everything you ever see written by David Every. His web site is reasonably nice, but his "editorials" unfailingly paint a picture of Mac users as clueless, narrow-minded, defensive bigots. I'm sure he means well, but the only reason I ever read his stuff is for the humor value. Don't waste your time, please.
I do have issues with Carmack's stance on Macs, but they're "attitudinal" (heh) not technical. He's got some emotion-based Mac-hatred in him, which I think is a shame, but he's coming over slowly. Even just a year ago, I couldn't imagine him agreeing to speak at MacWorld Expo, for example. If all goes well, in a few years he'll be doing all his development on some variant of Mac OS X (since it is based on the "OS love of his life," NeXTSTEP, after all)...something I think he'd welcome with open arms after all the NT development he's done. "He's got no love for the Empire, I can tell you that."
The self-sufficiency of SCSI device chains is nice, but far outweighed by FireWire's other advantages for all but a very small portion of users. And as IDE has shown, new, fast CPUs combined with the evolution of a device interface helps to make even the biggest "CPU hog" interfaces "good enough" for most purposes (and FireWire is not nearly as bad as IDE was/is).
For big servers and the like, I'd imagine that several higher-end serial interfaces with advantages similar to FireWire's would better serve the market if you could magically flip a switch and replace the investment in SCSI, but those markets change slowly, and there's no clear leader yet, as far as I can tell. The needs are so different, though, that it's taken considerable evolution for SCSI to venture to both the low- (standard on Mac motherboards, cheap PC SCSI cards) and high-end (giant RAIDs). FireWire is clearly a better fit for the low-end. The question is, how long will SCSI be the best fit for the high end?
It's my understanding that the SCSI mixed fast/slow device issue applies to some degree in all setups (i.e. "only when both devices are using the bus," etc.), but it was at the front of my mind since I've been playing with Mac G3 configs and it ocurred to me that if I got an Ultra2 card for both the internal drive and my "legacy" slow SCSI devices, I'd be handicapping the fast internal drive. The alternative seems to be an el-cheapo $50 SCSI-2 card (which is still plenty fast for my old 1GB drives, Zip, CD-R, etc.) and ATA for the internal. In that light, "slow" FireWire looks mighty attractive for future external device expansion. It'd be great if other PC makers could "herd their users" towards newer standards (SCSI, even!) the way Apple can with its total control of the hardware and software (which Slashdot readers just love, right?;-) Ah well, different markets...
Anyone have HIPPI devices on their PC? How about at work? Not very common, huh? Assuming SCSI survives and continues to evolve, it'll be the HIPPI of the next century, IMO. Here's what I base that on:
FireWire will dominate the consumer market. I think it's pretty clear that FireWire will easily take over in the consumer market--all things (like OS support, M$ not seeing it as a threat to some facet of their business, etc.) being equal, of course. Consumers will eat up the tiny, simple cables, the hot-swapping, the single connector, the large device limits, the lack of IDs and termination, and so on. They don't want or need the highest of high-end speeds. Add to this the presence of FireWire in other consumer markets like DV and possibly audio equipment and it's a sure bet to appear on every home PC eventually.
FireWire will probably dominate all but the very highest of the high-end. FireWire is "slow" now, but this is the very first generation of products. Did anyone doom SCSI to be stuck at the speed of SCSI-1 back when it was introduced? It stands to reason that FireWire will evolve just like SCSI did. Assuming SCSI development continues in some capacity after FireWire takes the consumer market, it may stay ahead of FireWire given its head-start in speed. But eventually SCSI is going to meet the same fate as any fast parallel interface (i.e. HIPPI), drowning in giant, expensive cables with very limited room to grow because of the basic design spec (device limits, termination, etc.). Maybe the NSA will use UltraMegaWideFast SCSI-7 in 2010, but you won't find a connector on the back of your Compaq from CompUSA. By that time, FireWire will probably be faster than the very fastest spinning magnetic media, and it'll be even more ubiquitous than SCSI is now (due to its penetration in the consumer audio/video market).
SCSI's installed base only delays the inevitable, it doesn't prevent it. People and companies with big bucks invested in SCSI devices will continue to use them until they're forced to upgrade, but individuals will trade up even faster. I know I'm never buying another SCSI device again, and I own a handful of hard drives, removables, and even a CD-R I bought just a few months ago. And, like most individuals who own SCSI equipment, my drives are mostly older, slower devices, not fast, giant RAIDs or even single 10,000 rpm units. So even if I *wanted* to stick with SCSI, I'd have to have at least two interfaces on my computer: an older SCSI card for my slow devices, and a faster UltraSCSI card or somesuch for the fast drive(s), because mixing fast and slow devices on the same SCSI bus slows everything down (whoops, there's another advantage of FireWire: fast devices are not impaired by slow devices on the same bus).
Like any transition, it'll take time. Just look at how long it took for ISA to disappear! SCSI will march on in some form, but FireWire is clearly the future of the vast majority of the market (i.e. home and "normal" business users). It's my hope that the coming generations of the FireWire spec will surpass SCSI so even the high-end will get the benefits of serial interface simplicity. Now, about that analog video connector...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
or, Why your computer will "come in colors" too.
I hate to link off-site, but here's a lengthy (and refreshingly flame/troll free) discussion of computer styling.
Check it out.
Fine, then you go out and buy XYZ and test it against the $5000 Mac OS X Server G3/400. Until then, jeez louise, keep quiet! As annoying and pointless as "PR benchmarks" may be, at least they tested something.
;-)
Sorry, but "the idle speculation of a Linux user" holds less weight with me than "a stacked benchmark cited in a press release." I suspect most people agree. Go test. Then come back, and we can all have fun picking apart your benchmarking setup
isamchk
Read all about it...
(Sorry if this is a duplicate)
periodically creating static HTML files from a dynamic database.
A fully-dynamic system has to read the DB and spew crap out for every user (could be many requests per second!) The theory is that this system is the most "live" (i.e. changes are visible to everyone immediately). The reality is that the hardware requirements of this system are very high for a moderate to high traffic site (Slashdot surely qualifies).
A periodically updated system has to read the DB and spew data (this time to files, not users) only once every 30 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, or whatever seems like a reasonable interval. Compared to running many times per second, this starts to look pretty nice. And you'd be surprised how large you can make the intervals while still maintaining a good user experience. An interval of 2 minutes would be almost indistinguishable from a truly live, dynamic system to most users, and 5 minutes is still completly within the realm of acceptability. The final optimization is to update the bare minimum files that need to be updated on each cycle. That's the real trick, but done right, it can be very efficient (thus allowing you to decrease the update interval even more). Think about it :-)
Oh, and as for corrupted DBs, what DB server are you using?
To keep the non-Mac fanatics from getting the wrong idea: Mac OS X isn't that far away, and Mac OS X Server (which will be much more like what most non-Mac users think Mac OS X is supposed to be: semi-Unix-ish with NeXT frameworks and all that jazz) was just released at MacWorld Expo SF.
.plan, so we'll see what he thinks when he gets his copy of the OS X Server release. And anyone who wants to do Mac OS X ("non-server") development now can do so using OS X Server and only have to make very minor changes when OS X is released in a year or so.
I'm sure Carmack will evaluate it soon. He's played with the various development versions of Mac OS X Server and written about it in his
Mac OS (as in Mac OS 7, 8, etc.) has essentially been a lame duck for the past year or so, and with OS X Server out, it's as dead as Win3.1 was when Win95 was released: still installed all over the place, but clearly in the rear view mirror from now on. The idea at Apple, though, is to make it seem like there never was a change, thus OS X (and even OS X Server, to some degree) looks and behaves like the old Mac OS. Don't be fooled, it's a bigger change than even Win3.1 all the way to Win NT. Apple's done this once before, with a full CPU switch (68k to PPC), which was pretty damn impressive, IMO, so I have faith they'll pull this switch nicely too.
As a Mac enthusiast, I beg you to just ignore everything you ever see written by David Every. His web site is reasonably nice, but his "editorials" unfailingly paint a picture of Mac users as clueless, narrow-minded, defensive bigots. I'm sure he means well, but the only reason I ever read his stuff is for the humor value. Don't waste your time, please.
I do have issues with Carmack's stance on Macs, but they're "attitudinal" (heh) not technical. He's got some emotion-based Mac-hatred in him, which I think is a shame, but he's coming over slowly. Even just a year ago, I couldn't imagine him agreeing to speak at MacWorld Expo, for example. If all goes well, in a few years he'll be doing all his development on some variant of Mac OS X (since it is based on the "OS love of his life," NeXTSTEP, after all)...something I think he'd welcome with open arms after all the NT development he's done. "He's got no love for the Empire, I can tell you that."
The self-sufficiency of SCSI device chains is nice, but far outweighed by FireWire's other advantages for all but a very small portion of users. And as IDE has shown, new, fast CPUs combined with the evolution of a device interface helps to make even the biggest "CPU hog" interfaces "good enough" for most purposes (and FireWire is not nearly as bad as IDE was/is).
;-) Ah well, different markets...
For big servers and the like, I'd imagine that several higher-end serial interfaces with advantages similar to FireWire's would better serve the market if you could magically flip a switch and replace the investment in SCSI, but those markets change slowly, and there's no clear leader yet, as far as I can tell. The needs are so different, though, that it's taken considerable evolution for SCSI to venture to both the low- (standard on Mac motherboards, cheap PC SCSI cards) and high-end (giant RAIDs). FireWire is clearly a better fit for the low-end. The question is, how long will SCSI be the best fit for the high end?
It's my understanding that the SCSI mixed fast/slow device issue applies to some degree in all setups (i.e. "only when both devices are using the bus," etc.), but it was at the front of my mind since I've been playing with Mac G3 configs and it ocurred to me that if I got an Ultra2 card for both the internal drive and my "legacy" slow SCSI devices, I'd be handicapping the fast internal drive. The alternative seems to be an el-cheapo $50 SCSI-2 card (which is still plenty fast for my old 1GB drives, Zip, CD-R, etc.) and ATA for the internal. In that light, "slow" FireWire looks mighty attractive for future external device expansion. It'd be great if other PC makers could "herd their users" towards newer standards (SCSI, even!) the way Apple can with its total control of the hardware and software (which Slashdot readers just love, right?
Well, one acronym, actually: HIPPI.
Anyone have HIPPI devices on their PC? How about at work? Not very common, huh? Assuming SCSI survives and continues to evolve, it'll be the HIPPI of the next century, IMO. Here's what I base that on:
Like any transition, it'll take time. Just look at how long it took for ISA to disappear! SCSI will march on in some form, but FireWire is clearly the future of the vast majority of the market (i.e. home and "normal" business users). It's my hope that the coming generations of the FireWire spec will surpass SCSI so even the high-end will get the benefits of serial interface simplicity. Now, about that analog video connector... ;-)