Re: New IBM Nonsense

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:49:09 -0800
Message-ID: <41f437e8$1_1@127.0.0.1>

thu.nnguyen_at_gmail.com wrote:

> DA Morgan wrote:
>

>>thu.nnguyen_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As for more
>>>clients/spindle .. well if the system can handle it, they would

>
> need
>

>>>more clients/spindles.
>>
>>So your statement is that disk i/o is irrelevant to benchmark

>
> results.
>

>>Please point out the source of this fascinating revelation.

>
>
> Of course not, but if you put in extra spindles or add extra clients on
> a system that is already CPU saturated, you won't get any better
> performance. You obviously don't know much about performance tuning.

Of course I don't. So where, specifically, has anyone in this entire thread or an anything published by any company anywhere stated the condition you just created from your Ouija board that indicates CPU was saturated?

Creative thinking is valuable. But it oft requires an anchor to reality. If that reality exists please point to it. If not have the integrity to admit that you just created your "CPU saturated comment" out of the aether.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Received on Sun Jan 23 2005 - 17:49:09 CST