Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dev!dgis!jkrueger From: jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses Message-ID: <784@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> Date: 5 Mar 90 16:39:56 GMT References: <1786@gannet.cl.cam.ac.uk> <1990Mar2.232735.6071@world.std.com> <780@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <1990Mar4.222938.20483@world.std.com> <1990Mar5.032554.1852@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> Organization: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Alexandria VA Lines: 21 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >I saw an article by someone from IBM in, as I recall, TODS that showed that >a smaller number of faster processors would give you better database >throughput than a larger number of slower processors of equivalent aggregate >mips. The crux of the argument is that when you have a lot of transactions, >there gets to be considerable contention and the faster processors have a >shorter hold time per transaction and fewer simultaneous transactions, hence >fewer collisions. I'll see if I can dig it up. The argument rests on a very questionable assumption, to wit: transaction latency is bottlenecked by computation. If so, great, SPECmarks/processor will predict TPS reliably and validly. If not, then the argument serves only to remind us on which side the bread is buttered for its author. -- Jon -- Jonathan Krueger jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil uunet!dgis!jkrueger The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.