From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <c0e05757240409120076649be00a937b@bellsouth.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:59:12 -0500
From: blstuart@bellsouth.net
In-Reply-To: <d488e1fa95671ee80dfae7771deb7338@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] VMs, etc.  (was: Re: security questions)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2ad5a92-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> Absolutly, but part of what has changed over the past 20
>> years is that the rate at which this local processing power
>> has grown has been faster than rate at which the processing
>> power of the rack-mount box in the machine room has
>> grown (large clusters not withstanding, that is).  So the
>> gap between them has narrowed.
>
> or, we have miserably failed as of late in putting ever cycle we
> can dream about to good use; we'd care more about the cycles
> of a cpu server if we were better at using them up.

What?  Dancing icons and sound effects for menu selections
are good use of cycles? :)

> 	every cycle's perfect, every cycle's great
> 	if one cycle's wasted, god gets quite irate

I often tell my students that every cycle used by overhead
(kernel, UI, etc) is a cycle taken away from doing the work
of applications.  I'd much rather have my DNA sequencing
application finish in 25 days instead of 30 than to have
the system look pretty during those 30 days.

> that, plus the fact that the the mhz wars are dead and
> gone.

Does that mean we're all playing core wars now? :)

BLS