🚀 go-pugleaf

johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:

>I saw an article by someone from IBM in, as I recall, TODS that showed that
>a smaller number of faster processors would give you better database
>throughput than a larger number of slower processors of equivalent aggregate
>mips.  The crux of the argument is that when you have a lot of transactions,
>there gets to be considerable contention and the faster processors have a
>shorter hold time per transaction and fewer simultaneous transactions, hence
>fewer collisions.  I'll see if I can dig it up.

The argument rests on a very questionable assumption, to wit:
transaction latency is bottlenecked by computation.  If so, great,
SPECmarks/processor will predict TPS reliably and validly.  If not,
then the argument serves only to remind us on which side the bread is
buttered for its author.

-- Jon
-- 
Jonathan Krueger    jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil   uunet!dgis!jkrueger
The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest
and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.