By: Tom W (twerges.delete@this.hotmail.com), August 24, 2008 12:06 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Jesper Frimann (jesperfrimann@gmail.com) on 8/22/08 wrote:
---------------------------
>Yes I know that feeling, but when you drill down into those people what U'll find is that
>much of that 'resistance to change', read one of my wife's books on psychology to learn that
>phrase, is just that. Resistance to change.
Exactly--resistance to change.
At present, there are _many_ smaller shops which use commodity x86/linux exclusively. When the time comes for those places to buy their first "big box", I suspect many of them will choose a larger x86/linux machine, if that's an option, rather than buying proprietary hardware. By doing so, they would not only retain something they're familiar with, but would also not need to hire other administrators etc.
I suspect that x86 will initially encroach into big iron in those shops which used commodity x86 previously and are buying a "big box" for the first time.
As a result, the proprietary architectures may lose the market of "initial big box buyers" to x86, when it can scale up sufficiently. So x86 could capture a significant part of the "big box" market owing to new installations, even if none of the established players migrated from proprietary hardware.
>I'd rather change from running Oracle on HPUX to Solaris than I'd change from running DB2 on HPUX to
>running Oracle on HPUX, just to mention a fictive example.
That I'll certainly grant. Everyplace I've worked, migrating from Solaris to linux would have been fairly trivial, but migrating off Oracle would have been utterly impossible. It frightens me to even think about that. In some places, a non-trivial fraction of their application was written as Oracle stored procedures.
I was told by someone who worked for Oracle that they used to maintain "bug compatibility" between versions of Oracle for different architectures. In other words, if there was a bug in the reference version of Oracle (the solaris version) then they would purposefully introduce exactly the same bug and exactly the same erroneous behavior into the versions for the other architectures, so as to assure that Oracle worked identically on all platforms.
>Well the highend server game is a totally different game. And if x86 wants to enter
>this space it needs to gain many of the same features as the processors that play in
>that space has. Furthermore the whole solution stack also have to be able to support
>'highend server features' and not to forget the people running the servers.
That I'll grant. But, doesn't it seem possible that some players will build high-end x86 boxes with those features?
When I started off as a programmer, Sun boxes were workstations for hackers. Sun had no enterprise strategy. IIRC, Sun started dominating the enterprise with the E10000 which was a design they purchased from someone else.
Within a few years, Sun boxes were what everyone had to have when they bought big iron.
If sparc could make that transition, then why not x86.
>Well the x86 game is Intel and then some smallish vendors that are struggling (sorry AMD).
>And much of the innovation that you see on the box side of x86 servers are things that have
>been copied from RISK/Itanium/Mainframe. The main innovation of the x86 server is the price, and
>that have strictly speaking also been done before.
That's true. On the bright side, the previous tech monopolies (like IBM) lavished money on R&D. They were very innovative. In fact, IIRC, many of the innovations copied in x86 servers originally came from the IBM 360, including virtual memory, timesharing, and many other things. Perhaps, if Intel gains a comparable monopoly then they'll spend alot on research like IBM did.
>And with Intel trying hard to grab more and more of the infrastructure inside servers...
>IMHO we are heading back to a world I personally don't care much for. And if that happens
>I will either go back to software development or perhaps start that microbrewery that I've
>been dreaming about.
Making processors is so capital-intensive and so R&D-heavy, that it may be a natural monopoly. It would be difficult to envision a competitor emerging against Intel.
The unfortunate thing about AMD is that they're not really doing anything wrong. They're just not big enough. AMD could only survive when Intel management was making silly mistakes, and AMD could exploit those mistakes. Since Intel management isn't making silly mistakes right now (quite the opposite), AMD is having a tough time of it.
---------------------------
>Yes I know that feeling, but when you drill down into those people what U'll find is that
>much of that 'resistance to change', read one of my wife's books on psychology to learn that
>phrase, is just that. Resistance to change.
Exactly--resistance to change.
At present, there are _many_ smaller shops which use commodity x86/linux exclusively. When the time comes for those places to buy their first "big box", I suspect many of them will choose a larger x86/linux machine, if that's an option, rather than buying proprietary hardware. By doing so, they would not only retain something they're familiar with, but would also not need to hire other administrators etc.
I suspect that x86 will initially encroach into big iron in those shops which used commodity x86 previously and are buying a "big box" for the first time.
As a result, the proprietary architectures may lose the market of "initial big box buyers" to x86, when it can scale up sufficiently. So x86 could capture a significant part of the "big box" market owing to new installations, even if none of the established players migrated from proprietary hardware.
>I'd rather change from running Oracle on HPUX to Solaris than I'd change from running DB2 on HPUX to
>running Oracle on HPUX, just to mention a fictive example.
That I'll certainly grant. Everyplace I've worked, migrating from Solaris to linux would have been fairly trivial, but migrating off Oracle would have been utterly impossible. It frightens me to even think about that. In some places, a non-trivial fraction of their application was written as Oracle stored procedures.
I was told by someone who worked for Oracle that they used to maintain "bug compatibility" between versions of Oracle for different architectures. In other words, if there was a bug in the reference version of Oracle (the solaris version) then they would purposefully introduce exactly the same bug and exactly the same erroneous behavior into the versions for the other architectures, so as to assure that Oracle worked identically on all platforms.
>Well the highend server game is a totally different game. And if x86 wants to enter
>this space it needs to gain many of the same features as the processors that play in
>that space has. Furthermore the whole solution stack also have to be able to support
>'highend server features' and not to forget the people running the servers.
That I'll grant. But, doesn't it seem possible that some players will build high-end x86 boxes with those features?
When I started off as a programmer, Sun boxes were workstations for hackers. Sun had no enterprise strategy. IIRC, Sun started dominating the enterprise with the E10000 which was a design they purchased from someone else.
Within a few years, Sun boxes were what everyone had to have when they bought big iron.
If sparc could make that transition, then why not x86.
>Well the x86 game is Intel and then some smallish vendors that are struggling (sorry AMD).
>And much of the innovation that you see on the box side of x86 servers are things that have
>been copied from RISK/Itanium/Mainframe. The main innovation of the x86 server is the price, and
>that have strictly speaking also been done before.
That's true. On the bright side, the previous tech monopolies (like IBM) lavished money on R&D. They were very innovative. In fact, IIRC, many of the innovations copied in x86 servers originally came from the IBM 360, including virtual memory, timesharing, and many other things. Perhaps, if Intel gains a comparable monopoly then they'll spend alot on research like IBM did.
>And with Intel trying hard to grab more and more of the infrastructure inside servers...
>IMHO we are heading back to a world I personally don't care much for. And if that happens
>I will either go back to software development or perhaps start that microbrewery that I've
>been dreaming about.
Making processors is so capital-intensive and so R&D-heavy, that it may be a natural monopoly. It would be difficult to envision a competitor emerging against Intel.
The unfortunate thing about AMD is that they're not really doing anything wrong. They're just not big enough. AMD could only survive when Intel management was making silly mistakes, and AMD could exploit those mistakes. Since Intel management isn't making silly mistakes right now (quite the opposite), AMD is having a tough time of it.
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 |