Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!swidir.switch.ch!newsfeed.ACO.net!Austria.EU.net!news.aut.alcatel.at!atusc75!ladavac From: ladavac@aut.alcatel.at (Marino Ladavac) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: "An HTTP software server can pummel a CPU..." Date: 15 Sep 1995 12:11:03 GMT Organization: Alcatel Austria AG Lines: 43 Message-ID: <43bqgn$861@atusks02.aut.alcatel.at> References: <gary-1309951409030001@bhb17.acadia.net> <438u8f$cok@kadath.zeitgeist.net> <MICHAELV.95Sep14230434@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: atusc75.aut.alcatel.at X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Michael L. VanLoon (michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com) wrote: : I don't think the CPU utilization is the big factor in a heavy-hit : database server -- that would be disk, and I/O. : I'll bet you could still get decent user response if you had a : medium-speed CPU (fast 486 or slower Pentium), coupled with a PCI bus, : and (the key ingredient) put all of the database stuff on one or more : drives connected to a PCI SCSI controller (or two), then put a : completely separate PCI SCSI controller in the machine and attach the : user drives to that one. I'll bet a modern OS would be usably : responsive under such conditions. : Most of the database processes would be spending their time sleeping, : waiting on a disk event, freeing up CPU for normal users. And, since : the normal users wouldn't be fighting the SCSI accesses for I/O, being : on their own disk and controller, response would be adequate. Aaah, but don't forget that for *this* one has to turn on one's brain. Aren't computers meant to take the burden of thinking from its users? (and as the todays' trends dictate, its admins?) /Alby [ about two pages of smileys for humor-challenged snipped ] P.S: of course that what Michael suggests would work; after all, that's the common practice from the dawn-a-time of mainframes--an IBM 360 CPU isn't much faster (if at all) from your run-off-the-mill Pentium; disks were also slowish; but there was a wholla lotta them on separate intelligent controllers (roughly speaking). However, those were the times when admins needed to have brains in working order :) : -- : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@HeadCandy.com : --< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >-- : NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4, : DEC PMAX (MIPS), DEC Alpha, PC532 : NetBSD ports in progress: VAX, Atari 68k, others... : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -