[THIN] Re: OT: Effect of Solid State drives
- From: "Braebaum, Neil" <Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 08:57:36 +0100
And you can do that because there's considerable more scope for tuning and
tinkering, that's accessible from people who are used to working with the OS.
IME at least, there's not be the quite the same involvement in using /
developing / considering Windows as an OS, as there was for people who worked
on previous OSs. That and some of the assertion that self-tuning largely covers
those bases.
Neil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Steve Greenberg
> Sent: 07 June 2007 20:00
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Effect of Solid State drives
>
>
>
> Imagine if you could create a lightweight bloat-free OS
> instance for each
> user, that was truly light but full featured. Actually
> Virtuozzo is pretty
> close to this today and probably the best candidate for this
> approach. It
> does this by sharing major aspects of the underlyin host OS (Linux and
> Windows). However, in LINUX at least, you can create a very
> small OS to do
> specialized tasks that stands alone.....
>
> Steve Greenberg
> Thin Client Computing
> 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
> Scottsdale, AZ 85262
> (602) 432-8649
> www.thinclient.net
> steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Timothy R. Mangan
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:30 AM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Effect of Solid State drives
>
> If you add Virtual Machines to this line of thinking, then one might
> conclude that there should be a market for "special-purpose"
> Oss. Specially
> built minimal bloat OS that supports the application needed. Linux
> Appliances are the closest to this idea today, except of
> course Linux is
> also a general purpose OS. I think all that is needed is the
> compelling VM
> application that wants the benefits (smaller footprint and
> more secure) of a
> small custom OS.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Braebaum, Neil
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:01 PM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Effect of Solid State drives
>
> Well you can set the OS not to use a pagefile - but that has it's
> downsides, too.
>
> What you *can't* change, though, is it's *nature*.
>
> Older OSs only used vm when required (ie running out of RAM)
> modern OSs
> behave differently. Water is wet, grass is green ;-)
>
> There are some fundamental differences (as much to do with the reason,
> as the mechanics) between swapping and paging - even if from a high
> level they may appear the same.
>
> In the days of mainframes, you would (likely) tune them to their
> activities - and often, such tuning would have a degree of scheduling,
> based on the workmix required. As an example, many mainframes
> ran 24x7,
> during day / office hours, may have provided a fair degree of
> support to
> terminals and sessions. Now they frequently had front-end
> processors to
> deal with some of that, but often a fair degree of "tuning"
> was done to
> provide responsiveness to that sort of activity.
>
> Outside of working hours, that workmix or demand may change
> more towards
> batch processing or heavy database processing, and printing. And you'd
> often see scheduled workmix changes, reconfiguring or tuning the OS to
> more suitably support that activity.
>
> When UNIX and small / mid-range systems became prevalent,
> there was less
> demand for this sort of thing - computing became more "distributed",
> machines were smaller, and often servers would do a
> reasonably specific
> type of activity - and were tuned accordingly. In those days,
> I spent a
> reasonable amount of time, tuning the OS / kernel to support
> the type of
> activity the machine was dedicated to - ie perhaps front-end /
> client-side processing, or back-end database serving type machines.
>
> Even then, though, there was a certain degree of general
> purpose-ness to
> the OS usage, and I did write and implement stuff that kinda altered
> "workmix" type tuning, based on time-of-day.
>
> Fast forward, now, to current servers running on Windows OSs (and note
> I'm not ignoring other modern OSs, merely that Windows is what we're
> discussing). You don't have anything like the same degree of OS tuning
> readily available or encouraged. And there's been a paradigm shift in
> application development - more likely Windows development, than the
> system programming you'd get with older operating systems.
>
> So you have general purpose OSs providing workhorse type roles, some
> marginal and general tuning to support the type or role that
> the server
> provides, and nothing like the same degree of technical involvement -
> both in configuration and systems programming that were evident in OSs
> of yester-yore.
>
> None of that's a criticism, just a general take on the history and
> implications of how OSs have evolved.
>
> Neil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Greenberg
> > Sent: 07 June 2007 17:50
> > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Effect of Solid State drives
> >
> >
> > That begs the question if perhaps can actually setup WIN2K3
> > to run purely from RAM and speed up all that caching and
> > thrashing stuff!!
> >
> > Steve Greenberg
> > Thin Client Computing
> > 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
> > Scottsdale, AZ 85262
> > (602) 432-8649
> > www.thinclient.net
> > steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Braebaum, Neil
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:31 AM
> > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Effect of Solid State drives
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Greenberg
> > > Sent: 07 June 2007 17:26
> > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Effect of Solid State drives
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Aside from the OS support part, haven't we done this
> > already with RAID
> > > controllers that have blocks of RAM on them? It always
> impresses me
> > > how much faster these controllers are then ones without
> RAM. Taking
> > > that solid state portion up to multiple gigabytes certainly
> > would make
> > > a huge difference for disk bottlenecks.
> > >
> > > BTW- Why does Windows still depend so much on the hard
> > drive when we
> > > are so much RAM available?? Tim, I think this question is
> for you J
> >
> > Well I'll have a go at answering it - I would speculate,
> > largely, that it's because from the design stage it is a
> > multi-purpose OS, that as well as providing or catering for
> > different types of workmix, always
> > *attempts* to be responsive for new processes. Hence, the
> > pre-emptive paging.
> >
> > This was a reasonable change from OSs that only ever used
> > virtual memory when they'd run out of physical memory.
> >
> > And it's (the OS) nature is such that it's not lent towards
> > performance customisation. By that I mean that in older
> > times, when OSs were more bespokely tuned to eek out the best
> > performance, this required a reasonable degree of expertise
> > and knowledge. Whilst there may be some tweaks and settings
> > that can be applied to Windows servers, these days, it's
> > fundamental nature and behaviour is general purpose.
> >
> > Neil
*****************************************************************************
This email and its attachments are confidential and are intended for the above
named recipient only. If this has come to you in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this email from your system. You must take no
action based on this, nor must you copy or disclose it or any part of its
contents to any person or organisation. Statements and opinions contained in
this email may not necessarily represent those of Littlewoods Shop Direct Group
Limited or its subsidiaries. Please note that email communications may be
monitored. The registered office of Littlewoods Shop Direct Group Limited is
1st Floor, Skyways House, Speke Road, Speke, Liverpool, L70 1AB, registered
number 5059352
*****************************************************************************
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl -
www.blackspider.com
SBC SITES ONLY GOOGLE SEARCH: http://www.F1U.com
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
Other related posts:
