3 ms·
> A system is scalable in the range where the cost of adding incremental work is approximately constant. The part that nobody ever says out loud: and where the
by pdpi 3y ago
> A system is scalable in the range where the cost of adding incremental work is approximately constant.
The part that nobody ever says out loud: and where the cost of removing incremental work is also approximately constant.
A solution targeting server or desktop environments doesn’t necessarily scale down to microcontroller scale. One of the things that makes both SQLite and Linux so popular is how they scale well into really small environments.
- solatic 3y agoDefine "small" - cost of physical dimensions, independence of operation, or cost of near-zero usage. For example, S3 and Lambda are basically free for usage with near-zero traffic, but of course you give up independence. Arguably more important than microcontroller scale, these days, is whether it runs well on Android. The cost of manufacturing custom hardware is enormous, but piggybacking off the Android ecosystem can often eliminate most of the need for custom hardware. Of course, Android is a very different target than Linux...
- scott_w 3y ago> Define "small" - cost of physical dimensions, independence of operation, or cost of near-zero usage. All three and possibly more. I think it all depends on what you're doing. > For example, S3 and Lambda are basically free for usage with near-zero traffic Just to build on this a little bit, even this has limits: if your operating environment has extremely lower power availability (so, low available bandwidth), maybe S3 has too much data transfer overhead!
- morelisp 3y agoScaling from a PC to a MCU is not incremental work.