Oh, those pesky algorithms, they did not adapt to the good, good hardware that is so fast. I do not like that stance at all. Consider CPUs, out-of-order ones.

Oh, those pesky algorithms, they did not adapt to the good, good hardware that is so fast. I do not like that stance at all. Consider CPUs, out-of-order ones. They can adapt to the algorithms being thrown at them and most of the time algorithm author is not even aware it can be done. Improvements in this area are steady, about two-to-five of percents per year. Apple's M1 is able to schedule almost 8 instructions per cycle, for example, in quite latency-sensitive task [1]. [1] https://lemire.me/blog/2021/03/24/counting-cycles-and-instructions-on-the-apple-m1-processor/ https://lemire.me/blog/2021/03/24/counting-cycles-and-instru... Storage systems development is unable to produce something that is similar to OoO CPUs. You can't throw algorithm at storage so that it'll adapt. Algorithms should be adapted to hardware. Circling back to CPUs, situation with storage hardware is very much like situation with the IBM's Cell BE architecture: hardware is fast, but nobody knows how to make concrete algorithms fast on that hardware. In my opinion, Cell BE is slow, just like contemporary storage systems are slow. They are fast only in benchmarks.