4 ms·

One reason people are reluctant to trust old sources (regardless of how well received they were at the time) is that software, operating systems and hardware al

One reason people are reluctant to trust old sources (regardless of how well received they were at the time) is that software, operating systems and hardware all move at lightning pace. I've not read your paper, but I'm willing to bet enough has changed to warrant a new writeup talking about modern systems.

luckydude 10y ago
I very much doubt it. If you read the paper, it took each of the things it could measure (memory, disk, network, etc) and measured bandwidth and latency. Those are pretty basic measurements and I suspect that they will still be interesting 100 years from now and measured in the same way. I'm running the benchmark right now on a modern system just to see what it says. Yep, still works fine: "size=0k ovr=0.90 2 7.63 4 6.51 8 7.78 16 7.07 24 7.78 32 9.02 64 10.35 96 10.49 That says that a hot potato (I send a byte to you, you send it back to me, the time is the round trip for one pair) context switch is ~7 usecs. Do it in a ring with 96 processes and it goes up to ~10 usecs. I think almost 100% of that benchmark is still valid (I say almost because there must be something that has bit rotted in 20+ years but I don't know of anything). It's worth a read. Edit: formatting.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
> operating systems and hardware all move at lightning pace not really, last big leap was the ability to unlock gpu for stream processing, and that's it. it's quite faster today as ten or one year ago, but at it's core it's still a von neumann machine and not much has been discovered ever since, mostly we're repackaging under a new name things that have been discovered in the 70s', like the thick vs thin client debate, which played more or less the same over and over again as the bottleneck switched from bandwidth to latency to client performances, the last iteration of which was ember and angular precompilation.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Some of the stuff goes back even further than that. The thread on the Intel Optane stuff the other day had an interesting conversation about how you would program for such systems and someone said we already did, mainframes 50 years ago. It's nice to see old ideas in a fresh context.
jlg23 10y ago
> I've not read your paper, but I'm willing to bet [...] Offloading all burden of proof onto the partner in a conversation strikes me as.. odd - esp. if said partner already provided a paper on the very same topic that you did not even read.

luckydude 10y ago

I very much doubt it. If you read the paper, it took each of the things it could measure (memory, disk, network, etc) and measured bandwidth and latency. Those are pretty basic measurements and I suspect that they will still be interesting 100 years from now and measured in the same way. I'm running the benchmark right now on a modern system just to see what it says. Yep, still works fine: "size=0k ovr=0.90 2 7.63 4 6.51 8 7.78 16 7.07 24 7.78 32 9.02 64 10.35 96 10.49 That says that a hot potato (I send a byte to you, you send it back to me, the time is the round trip for one pair) context switch is ~7 usecs. Do it in a ring with 96 processes and it goes up to ~10 usecs. I think almost 100% of that benchmark is still valid (I say almost because there must be something that has bit rotted in 20+ years but I don't know of anything). It's worth a read. Edit: formatting.

LoSboccacc 10y ago

> operating systems and hardware all move at lightning pace not really, last big leap was the ability to unlock gpu for stream processing, and that's it. it's quite faster today as ten or one year ago, but at it's core it's still a von neumann machine and not much has been discovered ever since, mostly we're repackaging under a new name things that have been discovered in the 70s', like the thick vs thin client debate, which played more or less the same over and over again as the bottleneck switched from bandwidth to latency to client performances, the last iteration of which was ember and angular precompilation.

noir_lord 10y ago
Some of the stuff goes back even further than that. The thread on the Intel Optane stuff the other day had an interesting conversation about how you would program for such systems and someone said we already did, mainframes 50 years ago. It's nice to see old ideas in a fresh context.

jlg23 10y ago

> I've not read your paper, but I'm willing to bet [...] Offloading all burden of proof onto the partner in a conversation strikes me as.. odd - esp. if said partner already provided a paper on the very same topic that you did not even read.