3 ms·
I agree, but at what cost? 10% performance hit, sure, no problem, VM's take about that much from running on real hardware. but a 100% performance hit or worse..
by zie 9y ago
I agree, but at what cost?
10% performance hit, sure, no problem, VM's take about that much from running on real hardware. but a 100% performance hit or worse... you must be crazy.
Also, downloading 1GB is no big deal, downloading 1TB is a big deal, so I think your example has more merit in the > 1TB range. i.e. things that don't fit on a laptop easily.
- aub3bhat 9y ago1Mb vs 1Gb vs 1Tb distinction is a function of information contained in data. If its PII even 1Mb is an orginizational headache from security/risk-management perspective. Also most commodity compute nodes have allocation around 16 Gb. The big difference comes in 16~256 Gb range where having a single powerful node can make a huge difference.
- zie 9y agoSure, but 'laptop' can be changed very easily into any container or VM box somewhere that is tied to security/etc but still on a single box. Again sizing here is sort of beside the point, the point is, if its 500% worse to use than just doing it on a single instance/compute node, you better be offering A LOT of magic awesomeness that makes the performance drain acceptable. 10% cost for the benefits that this stuff can give you, that is pretty easy to swallow. 100%-500% perf. cost is just a very, very, very hard to swallow pill.