By: rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com), August 19, 2008 12:42 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen@yahoo.com) on 8/19/08 wrote:
---------------------------
>In the middle of Olympic games
>TPC-C
>IBM System x3950 M2, 8S/48C/48T, Intel Xeon X7460, 2.66GHz, RHEL 5.2, DB2 ESE 9.5,
>512 GB, 1931 HDs - 1,200,632 tpmC at 1.99 $/tpmC
Interesting. First x86 tpmC over one million.
Looking over the disclosure report brings up an interesting issue: despite using (1920) 73GB disks, there's still a space overcommit of something like 2.5-to-1 for the database portion of the disk storage (the rest of this ignores the separate log storage). IOW, there are 2.5 times as many disks as the needed storage for the benchmark requires, strictly to increase the number of actuators (and the available IOPS).
The disk for this submission is about 81% of the total cost (the server itself is about 17%).
That has to lead one to wonder just how far we are from seeing someone submit a SSD based tpmC benchmark.
While SSD is still pretty pricey (about $400/GB for installed enterprise class storage), the reduction in net required storage puts the basic cost at about $19M. Which is, of course a fair chunk higher than the $1.47M of disk on this system.
Now database tables usually compress fairly well, especially fairly synthetic ones, so let's say 3:1 is possible, which drops the SSD storage price to a little over $6M. Compression is usually bad for performance because it increases fragmentation and the number of small I/Os necessary, but that's just the thing SSD excels at. Adding compression will clearly require more CPU, which I'm assuming will happen at the server, but the net is not going to be that much of an increase. Total I/O to the database disk is on the order of a few* GB/s, compressing that much won't take *that* much additional CPU. But let's say it bumps the $300K server by 50%.
That leads to a increase in hardware cost for those components from about $1.8M to $6.5M. While that will lead to a marginal $/tmpC score, it's not that far out of line.
Looking forward, the disk storage needed to support 1.2M tpmC is *not* going to get any cheaper (they're already using 73GB SAS disks - basically the smallest available), but certainly the SSD will. A factor of four in price, and the SSD based system becomes competitive in $/tpmC at the 1.2M tpmC level.
And a question is whether or not enterprise class SSD is really the correct benchmark here. After all, the disk system on this server is using midrange arrays and SAS, not FC, disks. IBM lists (semi reasonably) the 73GB disk at $329***/each, and you can buy “enterprise” 64GB SATA SSD drives off the shelf for $1350**. These out to be basically a straight swap into the array, perhaps with a software/firmware upgrade to handle the SATA disks. Swapping the 73GB drives for .46 times as many 64GB SSD drives (remember the 2.5 times overcommit), and assuming 54% fewer chassis, controllers, etc., ends up costing about $1.56M at the above prices, vs. the $1.44M for the current components. And that would be without any compression. And I’m guessing you’d get something of a discount if you ordered 900 64GB SSDs.
Actual SAS (as opposed to SATA) SSDs will be a bit more, but that’s basically a software change in the drive. And that’s not going to produce much of a performance change. Assuming maintenance charges are basically related to the base price, that leads to an increase in $/tpm/C from $1.99 to $2.11. Which is basically competitive right now, and in a system that will require rather less tuning to get to run at that speed.
Assuming IBM supplied SSD would get a 50% premium like the disks, you’re talking an extra $760K, which kicks the $/tpmC to $2.73.
But both of those numbers suggest that a TPC-C submission in the 1M tpm/C range based on SSD storage for the database should occur in the next year.
*The server in question is configured with eight dual channel 4Gb FC HBAs, which has a maximum theoretical throughput of 12.8GB/s, and the actual sustained rate is going to be rather less than that.
**Imation Pro 7000s in that size are showing 1-3 day delivery for $1320 at CDW, for example.
***Street prices in single units are about $220 (of course that’s without the official IBM stamp of approval).
---------------------------
>In the middle of Olympic games
>TPC-C
>IBM System x3950 M2, 8S/48C/48T, Intel Xeon X7460, 2.66GHz, RHEL 5.2, DB2 ESE 9.5,
>512 GB, 1931 HDs - 1,200,632 tpmC at 1.99 $/tpmC
Interesting. First x86 tpmC over one million.
Looking over the disclosure report brings up an interesting issue: despite using (1920) 73GB disks, there's still a space overcommit of something like 2.5-to-1 for the database portion of the disk storage (the rest of this ignores the separate log storage). IOW, there are 2.5 times as many disks as the needed storage for the benchmark requires, strictly to increase the number of actuators (and the available IOPS).
The disk for this submission is about 81% of the total cost (the server itself is about 17%).
That has to lead one to wonder just how far we are from seeing someone submit a SSD based tpmC benchmark.
While SSD is still pretty pricey (about $400/GB for installed enterprise class storage), the reduction in net required storage puts the basic cost at about $19M. Which is, of course a fair chunk higher than the $1.47M of disk on this system.
Now database tables usually compress fairly well, especially fairly synthetic ones, so let's say 3:1 is possible, which drops the SSD storage price to a little over $6M. Compression is usually bad for performance because it increases fragmentation and the number of small I/Os necessary, but that's just the thing SSD excels at. Adding compression will clearly require more CPU, which I'm assuming will happen at the server, but the net is not going to be that much of an increase. Total I/O to the database disk is on the order of a few* GB/s, compressing that much won't take *that* much additional CPU. But let's say it bumps the $300K server by 50%.
That leads to a increase in hardware cost for those components from about $1.8M to $6.5M. While that will lead to a marginal $/tmpC score, it's not that far out of line.
Looking forward, the disk storage needed to support 1.2M tpmC is *not* going to get any cheaper (they're already using 73GB SAS disks - basically the smallest available), but certainly the SSD will. A factor of four in price, and the SSD based system becomes competitive in $/tpmC at the 1.2M tpmC level.
And a question is whether or not enterprise class SSD is really the correct benchmark here. After all, the disk system on this server is using midrange arrays and SAS, not FC, disks. IBM lists (semi reasonably) the 73GB disk at $329***/each, and you can buy “enterprise” 64GB SATA SSD drives off the shelf for $1350**. These out to be basically a straight swap into the array, perhaps with a software/firmware upgrade to handle the SATA disks. Swapping the 73GB drives for .46 times as many 64GB SSD drives (remember the 2.5 times overcommit), and assuming 54% fewer chassis, controllers, etc., ends up costing about $1.56M at the above prices, vs. the $1.44M for the current components. And that would be without any compression. And I’m guessing you’d get something of a discount if you ordered 900 64GB SSDs.
Actual SAS (as opposed to SATA) SSDs will be a bit more, but that’s basically a software change in the drive. And that’s not going to produce much of a performance change. Assuming maintenance charges are basically related to the base price, that leads to an increase in $/tpm/C from $1.99 to $2.11. Which is basically competitive right now, and in a system that will require rather less tuning to get to run at that speed.
Assuming IBM supplied SSD would get a 50% premium like the disks, you’re talking an extra $760K, which kicks the $/tpmC to $2.73.
But both of those numbers suggest that a TPC-C submission in the 1M tpm/C range based on SSD storage for the database should occur in the next year.
*The server in question is configured with eight dual channel 4Gb FC HBAs, which has a maximum theoretical throughput of 12.8GB/s, and the actual sustained rate is going to be rather less than that.
**Imation Pro 7000s in that size are showing 1-3 day delivery for $1320 at CDW, for example.
***Street prices in single units are about $220 (of course that’s without the official IBM stamp of approval).
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
First Dunnington benchmark results | Michael S | 2008/08/19 09:54 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/19 12:42 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Apink | 2008/08/19 04:49 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/19 05:28 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 08:49 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:10 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 05:42 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 06:12 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 08:45 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:12 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:15 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 01:59 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Anders Jensen | 2008/08/20 02:26 AM |
+SSD | Anders Jensen | 2008/08/20 02:30 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 10:04 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | slacker | 2008/08/20 11:35 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/20 06:54 PM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/20 07:58 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | David Kanter | 2008/08/21 12:16 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/08/21 05:25 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Richard Cownie | 2008/08/21 05:32 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/21 07:39 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 08:07 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/21 08:52 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 09:35 AM |
OLTP appliance = mainframe? (NT) | Potatoswatter | 2008/08/21 10:44 AM |
OLTP appliance = HP NonStop? | Michael S | 2008/08/21 11:03 AM |
OLTP appliance | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 02:33 PM |
OLTP appliance | Potatoswatter | 2008/08/21 02:59 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:29 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Dan Downs | 2008/08/21 10:33 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2008/08/21 11:45 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Dan Downs | 2008/08/22 07:21 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:34 PM |
SLC vs. MLC vs DRAM | pgerassi | 2008/08/21 11:24 AM |
SLC vs. MLC vs DRAM | David Kanter | 2008/08/22 12:31 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Groo | 2008/08/23 11:52 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/21 05:14 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/22 07:05 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/22 01:27 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/08/22 05:26 PM |
SSD Controller differentiation | David Kanter | 2008/08/22 08:35 PM |
SSD Controller differentiation | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/22 09:34 PM |
SSD Controller differentiation (supercaps, cost...) | anon | 2008/08/23 09:18 AM |
SSD Controller differentiation (supercaps, cost...) | Doug Siebert | 2008/08/23 09:40 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/08/23 09:50 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/08 11:03 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/08 12:51 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/08 08:04 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/08 09:29 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/08 11:12 PM |
RAM vs SSD? | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/09 12:06 AM |
RAM vs SSD? | Max | 2008/09/12 11:51 AM |
RAM vs SSD? | EduardoS | 2008/09/12 03:27 PM |
Disk cache snapshotting | Max | 2008/09/13 07:34 AM |
Disk cache snapshotting | Howard Chu | 2008/09/14 08:58 PM |
Disk cache snapshotting | Max | 2008/09/15 11:50 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/09 06:43 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Howard Chu | 2008/09/09 08:42 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/09 09:39 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/09 11:29 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2008/09/10 01:51 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 02:09 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/10 03:48 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 04:52 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Max | 2008/09/10 05:28 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/10 05:21 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:17 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2008/09/10 05:29 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:23 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/10 09:45 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/10 06:25 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michael S | 2008/09/10 08:54 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/10 09:31 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Max | 2008/09/11 06:35 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 08:06 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 08:48 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 10:39 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Mark Roulo | 2008/09/11 11:18 AM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:59 PM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/11 06:16 PM |
Physical vs effective write latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 09:28 PM |
Physical vs effective write latency | MS | 2009/02/03 02:06 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/11 11:39 AM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/11 12:17 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/11 04:25 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:47 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | rwessel | 2008/09/11 05:01 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/11 11:00 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Anonymous | 2008/09/12 07:52 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | anon | 2008/09/13 09:06 AM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Ungo | 2008/09/15 11:18 AM |
To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | David Kanter | 2008/09/22 12:12 AM |
To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | Howard Chu | 2008/09/22 03:02 AM |
To SSD or not? Real data.. | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/22 06:33 AM |
To SSD or not? Real data.. | Ungo | 2008/09/22 11:27 AM |
4K sectors | Wes Felter | 2008/09/22 05:03 PM |
4K sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/22 09:31 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/22 08:38 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | rwessel | 2008/09/22 09:09 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Howard Chu | 2008/09/23 01:50 AM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/22 09:40 PM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | rwessel | 2008/09/23 08:11 AM |
Reasons for >512 byte sectors | Daniel | 2008/09/23 11:10 AM |
HDD long sector size availability | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/09/23 04:32 AM |
HDD long sector size availability | rwessel | 2008/09/23 08:19 AM |
HDD long sector size availability | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/09/23 01:17 PM |
To SSD or not? Real data.. | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/22 10:16 PM |
To SSD or not? One lady's perspective | Wes Felter | 2008/09/22 10:25 AM |
How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Rob Thorpe | 2008/09/22 01:01 PM |
How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Matt Craighead | 2008/09/23 05:59 PM |
How should SSDs be engineered into systems? | Matt Sayler | 2008/09/24 03:17 AM |
ATA/SCSIS, Write Flushes and Asych Filesystems | TruePath | 2009/01/25 03:44 AM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Michael S | 2008/09/12 03:58 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/12 03:59 AM |
overlapped erase and read | David W. Hess | 2008/09/12 08:56 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Anonymous | 2008/09/12 07:45 PM |
overlapped erase and read | Jouni Osmala | 2008/09/12 10:56 PM |
overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/13 10:29 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Michael S | 2008/09/13 11:09 AM |
overlapped erase and read | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/13 01:05 PM |
SLC vs. MLC - the trick to latency | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/11 04:31 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/09/08 01:07 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2008/09/08 01:30 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | EduardoS | 2008/09/08 03:01 PM |
SSD and RAID | Joe Chang | 2008/09/08 06:42 PM |
SSD and RAID | Doug Siebert | 2008/09/08 08:46 PM |
SSD and RAID | Aaron Spink | 2008/09/09 03:27 PM |
SSD and RAID | Groo | 2008/09/10 12:02 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 09:22 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 01:04 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 02:24 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 03:47 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anonymous | 2009/01/06 04:17 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 04:58 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:35 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 04:45 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/06 05:09 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/06 06:47 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:26 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2009/01/06 07:23 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Joern Engel | 2009/01/06 11:52 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | anon | 2009/01/07 01:34 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | IntelUser2000 | 2009/01/07 06:43 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/07 09:28 AM |
drop data filesystem semantic | Doug Siebert | 2009/01/09 11:21 AM |
FTL and FS | iz | 2009/01/09 06:49 PM |
FTL and FS | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/09 08:53 PM |
FTL and FS | iz | 2009/01/10 01:09 AM |
FTL and FS | Michael S | 2009/01/10 02:19 PM |
compiling large programs | iz | 2009/01/10 04:51 PM |
compiling large programs | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/10 06:58 PM |
compiling large programs | peter | 2009/01/11 04:30 AM |
compiling large programs | Andi Kleen | 2009/01/11 12:03 PM |
The File Abstraction | TruePath | 2009/01/25 05:45 AM |
The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/25 12:49 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 08:23 AM |
The File Abstraction | Michael S | 2009/01/26 12:39 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 01:31 PM |
The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/26 02:06 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/26 03:29 PM |
The File Abstraction | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 08:24 AM |
The File Abstraction | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 09:14 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/27 09:15 AM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/27 10:20 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/27 12:16 PM |
Attributes All The Way Down | Mark Christiansen | 2009/01/27 01:17 PM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/27 04:25 PM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/28 07:17 AM |
The File Abstraction: API thoughts | Carlie Coats | 2009/01/28 08:35 AM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/28 09:09 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/28 12:44 PM |
Programs already 'hide' their metadata in the bytestream, unbeknownst to users | anon | 2009/01/28 08:28 PM |
The File Abstraction | slacker | 2009/01/29 09:39 AM |
The File Abstraction | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/29 10:08 AM |
The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/29 10:49 AM |
The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/29 01:58 PM |
The File Abstraction | rwessel | 2009/01/29 03:23 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/29 02:05 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | stubar | 2009/01/29 03:49 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/29 04:15 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/01/29 06:42 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/01/29 08:15 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/02/01 06:18 PM |
Double Duh. | Anonymous | 2009/02/01 09:58 PM |
Double Duh. | anon | 2009/02/02 01:08 AM |
Double Duh. | Anonymous | 2009/02/02 04:11 PM |
Double Duh. | anon | 2009/02/02 06:33 PM |
Like Duh | David Kanter | 2009/02/01 10:05 PM |
Like Duh | peter | 2009/02/01 10:55 PM |
Like Duh | anon | 2009/02/02 12:55 AM |
Xattrs, Solar power, regulation and politics | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/02 03:36 AM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | hobold | 2009/02/02 05:14 AM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | rwessel | 2009/02/02 11:33 AM |
good summary | Michael S | 2009/02/03 01:41 AM |
good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 08:57 AM |
good summary | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 09:21 AM |
good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 10:18 AM |
good summary | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 11:00 AM |
good summary | Mark Christiansen | 2009/02/03 11:36 AM |
good summary | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 09:39 PM |
good summary | rwessel | 2009/02/03 10:03 PM |
good summary | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 10:46 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | slacker | 2009/02/04 04:06 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Michael S | 2009/02/05 12:05 AM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Ungo | 2009/02/05 12:15 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | slacker | 2009/02/05 01:19 PM |
Terminology seems too fuzzy to me | Howard Chu | 2009/02/05 03:44 PM |
Like Duh | iz | 2009/01/30 01:03 AM |
EAs (security labels) hosed me badly | anon | 2009/01/30 08:48 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | RagingDragon | 2009/01/29 08:31 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anonymous | 2009/01/29 07:13 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/29 08:38 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/30 10:24 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/30 04:50 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Etienne Lehnart | 2009/01/29 11:22 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Rob Thorpe | 2009/01/30 11:39 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | slacker | 2009/01/30 12:16 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/30 05:03 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/30 10:22 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | rwessel | 2009/01/30 11:08 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anonymous | 2009/01/30 11:22 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | rwessel | 2009/01/30 11:56 PM |
Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/01/31 08:04 AM |
Scaling | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/02 01:39 AM |
Scaling | rwessel | 2009/02/02 10:41 AM |
Scaling | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 11:30 AM |
Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/02/02 01:27 PM |
Scaling | Rob Thorpe | 2009/02/03 04:08 AM |
Scaling | Dean Kent | 2009/02/03 06:38 AM |
Scaling | rwessel | 2009/02/03 01:34 PM |
Scaling | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 09:46 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 10:27 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Howard Chu | 2009/02/03 11:03 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 11:17 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | RagingDragon | 2009/02/03 10:00 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Michael S | 2009/02/04 05:46 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | RagingDragon | 2009/02/04 08:33 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Dean Kent | 2009/02/03 11:17 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Matt Sayler | 2009/02/03 11:24 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/04 09:43 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | rwessel | 2009/02/03 01:44 PM |
in defense of software that does not scale | anon | 2009/02/04 01:35 AM |
in defense of software that does not scale | Carlie Coats | 2009/02/04 04:24 AM |
Scaling with time vs. scaling from the beginning. | mpx | 2009/02/05 12:57 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Michael S | 2009/01/31 09:33 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | anon | 2009/01/31 09:37 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | JasonB | 2009/01/31 07:11 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/01/31 10:43 AM |
Extended Attributes in Action | JasonB | 2009/01/31 03:37 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 01:42 PM |
Extended Attributes in Action | Howard Chu | 2009/02/02 01:44 PM |
The File Abstraction | Rob Thorpe | 2009/01/27 10:20 AM |
The File Abstraction | Howard Chu | 2009/01/26 11:28 PM |
The File Abstraction | Michael S | 2009/01/27 02:00 AM |
The File Abstraction | Dean Kent | 2009/01/27 07:30 AM |
The File Abstraction | Andi Kleen | 2009/01/27 01:05 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Michel | 2009/01/12 05:54 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/01/12 06:38 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | rwessel | 2009/01/12 11:52 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Ungo | 2009/01/13 02:04 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | Wes Felter | 2009/01/13 04:42 PM |
SLC vs. MLC | TruePath | 2009/01/25 04:05 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Ungo | 2008/08/21 11:54 AM |
SLC vs. MLC | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 12:20 PM |
MLC vs. SLC | Michael S | 2008/08/21 07:57 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | rwessel | 2008/08/21 09:40 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/21 02:18 AM |
First Dunnington benchmark results | Etienne Lehnart | 2008/08/20 03:38 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/19 09:10 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Jesper Frimann | 2008/08/19 11:28 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/20 02:42 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | David Kanter | 2008/08/21 12:13 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Joe Chang | 2008/08/21 05:54 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | asdf | 2008/08/22 12:18 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/22 06:54 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Jesper Frimann | 2008/08/22 08:48 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Tom W | 2008/08/24 12:06 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/24 03:19 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/24 08:30 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Paul | 2008/08/24 10:16 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/24 11:37 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/24 11:53 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/22 09:19 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | aaron spink | 2008/08/23 01:56 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Michael S | 2008/08/23 08:58 AM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 12:51 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 12:55 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/23 03:52 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | anonymous | 2008/08/23 04:28 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/23 05:12 PM |
Off road and topic | EduardoS | 2008/08/23 05:28 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | someone | 2008/08/23 05:26 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | Dean Kent | 2008/08/23 08:40 PM |
Will x86 dominate big iron? | anonymous | 2008/08/24 12:46 AM |
Off road and topic | David W. Hess | 2008/08/24 02:24 AM |
Off road and topic | Aaron Spink | 2008/08/24 03:14 AM |
Beckton vs. Dunnington | Mr. Camel | 2008/08/22 05:30 AM |
Beckton vs. Dunnington | jokerman | 2008/08/22 11:12 AM |
Beckton vs. Dunnington | Mr. Camel | 2009/05/29 09:16 AM |