river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From MICHAEL MCGRADY <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com>
Subject Re: datastructure classes
Date Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:04:29 GMT
If the system was linearly scalable and the result was fast enough, no.  For me, philosophy
is dead and engineering lives.  I don't care about definitions and such, I care about results
and that is what you mean.  I agree wholeheartedly.

MG


On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

> On 12/16/2010 12:48 PM, MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote:
> ...
>> So, I think the non-functional requirements and related technologies,
>> e.g., clustering, in-memory access, etc., are primary.  For example,
>> when scaling is at issue, it is not important that 300,000,000
>> transactions can be handled in 10 hours, say, but the fact that we
>> can start at 100 transactions with economies of scale and then use
>> the system to scale to 300,000,000 with the same performance is.
> 
> Given a system that does 300,000,000 transactions with acceptable response time, would
you really object if the 100 transaction system had even faster response time?
> 
> Patricia

Michael McGrady
Chief Architect
Topia Technology, Inc.
Cel 1.253.720.3365
Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037
mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com




Mime
View raw message