List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Jim Starkey Date:December 9 2008 6:23pm
Subject:Re: Memory, Falcon, and $$$
View as plain text  
Philip Stoev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I totally understand your argument, however you are buying bulk 
> generic memory. You also bought whitebox machines when you bought the 
> servers themselves for less than $2000 each. Unfortunately the 
> economics is a bit different in the corporate world. People still have 
> very expensive 80gig SCSI RAID arrays out there.
Nope.  The servers (case and motherboards) are Supermicro 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/technology/business-computing/24micro.html?partner=rss&emc=rss),

who also peddle machines to the likes of EBay and Yahoo.  Chris's 
machine, an Intel supplied prototype, was also a Supermicro machine.
>
> The cheapest Xeon server Sun sells retails for $3,435.28 with 4 GB of 
> memory, about twice as much as a simularily-configured whitebox 
> server. The next 8GB of memory costs USD $600 (six hundred united 
> states currency).
And if Sun could find more customers to pay $600 for commodity memory 
available on the open market for $84, Sun stock price would be a great 
deal higher.

There's a name for companies that believe customers will a lot extra for 
private labeled commodities:  Extinct.

>
> I totally agree that we should not make any sacrifices in order to 
> have Falcon perform well in 32Mb. However, I am not sure if any of 
> those outcomes are acceptable:
> * Refusing to execute a query that Innodb would execute and error with 
> an out-of-memory condition;
> * Experience a performance degradation worse than one that would 
> happen due to OS trashing;
> * Crash or unable to recover;
Mostly, I agree.  If InnoDB cheats with an "implicit" commit, that's a 
different story.

Falcon is an engine designed for "modern on-line applications".  It 
shouldn't sacrifice on-line performance to handle batch operations that 
$50 worth of memory would fix.  I would be happy to trade-off mass 
update performance for on-line performance any day -- on-line means 
there's a human waiting.  We need to batch operations, of course, but we 
don't need to lose sleep over their relative performance.
>
> Philip Stoev
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Starkey" <jstarkey@stripped>
> To: "FalconDev" <falcon@stripped>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:09 PM
> Subject: Memory, Falcon, and $$$
>
>
>> I took delivery of 40 GB of ECC memory for my cloud.  Excluding tax, 
>> the total cost was $420 plus tax, or $10.50 per GB (shipping was free).
>>
>> This is a question that everyone should ask himself or herself 
>> regularly: Would our users be willing to spend an extra $50 per 
>> server for a faster database?  How can we use memory better to 
>> improve performance.  And, does it make sense to sacrifice adequate 
>> memory performance to work in low memory situations?
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Jim Starkey
>> President, NimbusDB, Inc.
>> 978 526-1376
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Falcon Storage Engine Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/falcon
>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/falcon?unsub=1
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Jim Starkey
President, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376

Thread
Memory, Falcon, and $$$Jim Starkey9 Dec
  • Re: Memory, Falcon, and $$$Philip Stoev9 Dec
    • Re: Memory, Falcon, and $$$Jim Starkey9 Dec