Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!rutgers!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!decwrl!spar!singer
From: singer@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM (David Singer)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Speed is the one true performance metric
Message-ID: <798@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>
Date: Mon, 3-Nov-86 16:16:46 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.798
Posted: Mon Nov  3 16:16:46 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Nov-86 08:10:13 EST
References: <340@euroies.UUCP> <1989@videovax.UUCP>
Reply-To: singer@spar.UUCP (David Singer)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research - CASLAB
Lines: 17

In article <12142@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:
>In article <1903@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>>>The metrics I'm interested in measure speed.  (Basically, I'm hooked
>>>on fast machines.)  Other constraints are less interesting because:
>>>(1) I will buy the fastest machine I can afford, and (2) in terms of
>>>architecture, speed is the bottom line -- all else is just
>>>mitigating circumstances.
>>
>>I must disagree.  Reliability is at least as important as speed.
>
>I must disagree.  The the idea is to get as much effective speed out of the
>machine as possible.  A machine that is down 50% of the time delivers 1/2
>of its operational speed to the user as throughput. Turnaround time (which is
>what most people are interested in) will suffer more, under most circumstances.

I really fail to see how an immediate or rapid answer you can't trust
is of any use at all.