DP performance

[Danial Thom]

--- Erik Wikström <erik-wikstrom at xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On 2005-12-11 15:47, Danial Thom wrote:
> > you are completely wrong on every point. A
> > computer is only deterministic if its running
> one
> > task. And if he doesn't understand the math
> of
> > the bus, then all of his conclusions will be
> > faulty. and I promise you his math is wrong.
> 
> A computer is always deterministic, but you are
> correct in the sence 
> that when the complexity of the workload
> increases and the interaction 
> with other entities the complexity makes it
> very hard to correctly 
> perform a simulation. In these cases we can
> instead procees with 
> statistical models.
> 
> As to the question of the correctness of Matt's
> claims it's still just 
> your word against his and I have yet to see any
> facts backing up your 
> claims.
> 
ah, but statistical models are only dead-on
accurate when you have a completely accurate
understanding of everything that can occur, which
is almost never. Which is why the only valuable
test is an empirical one. 

haha. My point is that "his word" has  no backing
because its just theory, and because his
fundamentals are wrong. He refuses to grasp the
fact that the PCI bus is a burst bus, and that
you can't determine the transfer rate or cpu
requirement with the A+B=C math that he uses. The
number of bursts it takes (and thus # of setups
and I/O operations) will vary with traffic
levels. As the levels increase, the bursts become
shorter, because bus contention increases. So you
can't say that the math for transfering 1 packet
is the same for 750K packets/second, because its
just plain wrong to do so.

What do you think "my word" is? My only point was
that I use the usage level at which a machine
starts dropping packets to determine its point of
capacity. I don't see how I can be wrong about
anything, since its hard to argue against that
point. And what do you think Matt's point was? I
don't even think its relevant.

> PS.
> What's up with your mail-client? Wrapping lines
> at 50 characters is very 
> conservative, I'm quite convinced that there's
> no (or sufficiently few) 
> computers/terminals that can not handle at
> least 64 characters per line. 
> You also seem to have a problem when replying
> to the list, the 
> References-field is not set.

Its yahoo :-) Its more of a web page than a mail
reader. Welcome to the 21st century.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com