Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!know!samsung!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems
Message-ID: <9011060349.AA00949@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 6 Nov 90 03:49:04 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24

>> In the case where the client and server are known to be on the same
>> machine, and portability is not a consideration, an
>> all-singing-all-dancing server may indeed be a better way to go.

> Huh?  With shared libraries, and the fact that communications are
> typically faster on the same machine?  I don't see that the
> conclusion follows.

I said "may".  This implies also "may not".

> On the same machine, a cycle is a cycle is a cycle, unless overhead
> is increased by the choice of where to do the computation.

It is, to some extent - can you say "context switch"?  While it's true
that context switches don't really take all that long, they do take
time.  And on some machines (Sun-4s, for example), there's a fairly
sharp performance knee when too many processes are competing for cpu.

(What?  I'm defending the non-X side?  Somebody wake me up, quick! :-)

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu