🚀 go-pugleaf

brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) writes:

>The
>small size of the utilization factor completely negates the cost performance
>edge of the Killer Micro inside it.  This is not, however, an argument against
>the Killer Micros themselves.  It is an argument against single user workstations
>that spend almost ALL their time in the kernel idle loop, or the X screen lock
>display program as is often the case.

>Computers are best utilized as shared resources, your Killer Micros should
>be many to a box and sitting in the computer room where the fan noise does
>not drive you nuts.  This is where I keep MY Killer Micros.

If someone measured the time that I spend using the stapler, tape
dispenser, or pocket calculator that I have in my office, they'd
find that each sits idle 99.9...% of the time.  Does this mean that
I shouldn't have exclusive use of these items, and I should have to
go to some central facility whenever I want to staple, tape, or
calculate?

Obviously, single user work stations are not yet so cheap as to be in
the same category as staplers.  But, a $20,000 workstation dedicated
to a > $100,000/year engineer or scientist doesn't seem that outrageous.
The argument that an idle CPU is a wasted CPU becomes less and less
convincing as the cost comes down.  An idle CPU that I can use when-
ever I want, which is then 100% dedicated to me when I want it, could
be the way to optimize MY time.  Improving people productivity is the
name of the game, not improving computer utilization.

I'd be happy to have my CPU (with its maddening fan) in a remote location,
where it could share power supplies, cooling, and disk space.  But I still
want it to be mine. 

Steve Jay
shj@ultra.com  ...ames!ultra!shj
Ultra Network Technologies / 101 Dagget Drive / San Jose, CA 95134 / USA
(408) 922-0100 x130	"Home of the 1 Gigabit/Second network"