Then why do others have no problems w/ far less horsepower?
In all this dick swinging about big and little machines hardly anyone mentions what it is they do with the machines. If you're not doing much you don't need much hardware capability. If you're prepared to wait a little while a program loads, or pages when you swap apps, then little RAM is fine for you. If that's okay by you then fine. Some of us (a) do some large things that stress machines regardless of OS, (b) want to do that while doing something else and (c) aren't prepared to wait a long time for either (a) or (b) to happen as it slows down work.
Australia is a nation that was founded by criminals
Not really. The British, after losing the North American colonies they used to ship criminals to, used some parts of Australia for the same purpose. Some cities, such as Melbourne and Adelaide, were not penal colonies. I've also read that more people were deported to the North American colonies than to the Australian ones (googling for stats is left as an exercise for the reader). Our only "mistake" was not to revolt against the British.
At the last federal election I rock up to the polling place, a school not too far from my house. I just walked up, got the iPod going so I don't have to listen to the local "party members" trying to hand me how to vote forms. As I walk in this guy, talking to someone on his left, bumps into me. I turn around, he turns around. It's fucking John Howard (prime minister of Oz if you don't know) - his office is just up the road from the school and he'd wandered down for a meet-and-greet. I just kept going.
He did nothing! There I was, fragantly defying the law of the land and our fearless leader, otherwise known as "the rodent", did nothing. He had his security guys there. He could of tackled me himself. Grabbed me and made a citizen's arrest or something. But he did nothing. Weak on law he is. Weak!
At least there's some mention of SoC in the first and second articles. The third article, as linked by the submitter, just says to use revision control and branching. Woop de doo.
This statement, from the second article, worries me,
The SoC emerged as a design concept as early as 2002.
Guess that stuff we've been doing for over a decade ago wasn't SoC work then. They just looked like one. Sheeeze.... (sarcasm off)
Everytime I read one of these IBM DeveloperWorks links I get annoyed. The articles are either so pithy or trivial I can't see how anyone can find value in them, e.g. this stuff about revision control under the guise of SoC co-design. It's just trivial bullshit. Any half-decent developer type knows this stuff backwards. Maybe this part of IBM is aiming the articles at a different audience? I just don't know.
Uggghhhh...The control key is supposed to be where caps lock is usually placed (IBM fucked up big time and moved it many, many years ago, everyone else copied their stupidity). Map caps lock to a control and use it with your left little finger.
Without some idea of the access patterns, schema and actual DBMS configuration its hard to say what can be done to improve performance. There are purely mechanical things like caching as much as possible, getting faster disks, more memory, etc... but these may not even help depending upon the more fundamental issues of DB design and deployment. Depending upon the use MySQL may not even be appropriate given some of its limitations, PostgreSQL may be a better fit for instance if there's a lot of updating going on or client s/w is performing many queries to assemble views which could be better done closer to the data.
When things like that start happening I go direct to the console log to see if its reporting disk errors. Given its a dev. box though it could be that darwin's driver is just sucky but it never hurts to check.
Typically large organizations spend millions on mainframes to do I/O not compute and trying to move those types of things to PC clusters doesn't work without (a) adequate network infrastructure and (b) a distributed I/O system that scales. Some tasks can move, e.g. the obvious example is Google but they have rather unique constraints that make it possible, i.e. trivially parallelizable, no need to guarantee total correctness and a willingness to expose details of the distribution to applications (ref. GoogleFS API, MapReduce and Pike et al's language atop MapReduce).
People who do need lots of compute cycles need problems and, more importantly, solutions that are amenable to distribution over a cluster made from the office PCs, with its relatively slow and high latency comms. I.e. you need tasks with large amount of compute over relatively small amounts of data which don't need to communicate with each all that much. Not everything falls, or can be pushed, into that model.
Slashdot Mirror
In all this dick swinging about big and little machines hardly anyone mentions what it is they do with the machines. If you're not doing much you don't need much hardware capability. If you're prepared to wait a little while a program loads, or pages when you swap apps, then little RAM is fine for you. If that's okay by you then fine. Some of us (a) do some large things that stress machines regardless of OS, (b) want to do that while doing something else and (c) aren't prepared to wait a long time for either (a) or (b) to happen as it slows down work.
Certainly. That's why there are documents such as this one.
Fewwwweeeeeerrrrrrrrr.........
No. you've got that backwards. It's well known that NeXT bought Apple. For -$400 million.
Formatting, for most file system structures, is dependent upon seek times and with solid-state storage seeks are non-existent. Hence the speed up.
Nah, more like "One More Redmond Nightmare"
Not really. The British, after losing the North American colonies they used to ship criminals to, used some parts of Australia for the same purpose. Some cities, such as Melbourne and Adelaide, were not penal colonies. I've also read that more people were deported to the North American colonies than to the Australian ones (googling for stats is left as an exercise for the reader). Our only "mistake" was not to revolt against the British.
True story...
At the last federal election I rock up to the polling place, a school not too far from my house. I just walked up, got the iPod going so I don't have to listen to the local "party members" trying to hand me how to vote forms. As I walk in this guy, talking to someone on his left, bumps into me. I turn around, he turns around. It's fucking John Howard (prime minister of Oz if you don't know) - his office is just up the road from the school and he'd wandered down for a meet-and-greet. I just kept going.
He did nothing! There I was, fragantly defying the law of the land and our fearless leader, otherwise known as "the rodent", did nothing. He had his security guys there. He could of tackled me himself. Grabbed me and made a citizen's arrest or something. But he did nothing. Weak on law he is. Weak!
Followed by,
when things get really tough and I absolutely have to know the little details, I like to hit the source
I think you just answered your own question.
Qt suffers the same thing. The docs look okay on the surface but are inadequate when it comes to details.
This statement, from the second article, worries me,
Guess that stuff we've been doing for over a decade ago wasn't SoC work then. They just looked like one. Sheeeze.... (sarcasm off)
Everytime I read one of these IBM DeveloperWorks links I get annoyed. The articles are either so pithy or trivial I can't see how anyone can find value in them, e.g. this stuff about revision control under the guise of SoC co-design. It's just trivial bullshit. Any half-decent developer type knows this stuff backwards. Maybe this part of IBM is aiming the articles at a different audience? I just don't know.
"Nerve Growth Factor"? Bullshit. More like "New Girl Friend". Pork like bunnies till it hurts too much.
Ah Lord Kano, I see you are a man of science.
Nah, they're okay. The install the source under $sys$src
No. I am your father.
Uggghhhh...The control key is supposed to be where caps lock is usually placed (IBM fucked up big time and moved it many, many years ago, everyone else copied their stupidity). Map caps lock to a control and use it with your left little finger.
War and Peace isn't typically printing on letter sized paper.
Excuse me, your culture is showing.
You could possibly replace that sentence containing the offending word with,
Without some idea of the access patterns, schema and actual DBMS configuration its hard to say what can be done to improve performance. There are purely mechanical things like caching as much as possible, getting faster disks, more memory, etc... but these may not even help depending upon the more fundamental issues of DB design and deployment. Depending upon the use MySQL may not even be appropriate given some of its limitations, PostgreSQL may be a better fit for instance if there's a lot of updating going on or client s/w is performing many queries to assemble views which could be better done closer to the data.
In forth the back of the "window" is where the comments live.
When things like that start happening I go direct to the console log to see if its reporting disk errors. Given its a dev. box though it could be that darwin's driver is just sucky but it never hurts to check.
That's not an article. That's a press release with the words "press release" crossed out and "article" written in in crayon.
How f'ing ten years ago are sticks. Man, get with the times.
People who do need lots of compute cycles need problems and, more importantly, solutions that are amenable to distribution over a cluster made from the office PCs, with its relatively slow and high latency comms. I.e. you need tasks with large amount of compute over relatively small amounts of data which don't need to communicate with each all that much. Not everything falls, or can be pushed, into that model.
Whoops, angle backets... That should read...
SunOS <= 4.x was BSD-derived, SunOS >= 5.x was SysV.4 derived.