Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28670 > unrolled thread

how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-02-21 19:57 -0800
    Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 02:32 -0800
      Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-24 17:58 -0500
        Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2014-02-27 21:02 -0800
    Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-28 21:41 -0800
    Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-01 10:54 -0800
      Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2014-03-01 22:41 -0800
        Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2014-03-12 21:31 +1100
          Re: how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2014-03-12 23:57 -0700

#28670 — how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk?

just wondering?

at work they get about 200

I think its pathetic

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28737

On Friday, February 21, 2014 7:57:24 PM UTC-8, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> just wondering?
> 
> 
> 
> at work they get about 200
> 
> 
> 
> I think its pathetic

I mean

lol

I would say 1000s ya?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28756

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:32:52 -0500, gavino_himself  
<visploveslisp@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 21, 2014 7:57:24 PM UTC-8, the_gavino_himself wrote:

>> [InTitle: how many users active could a forth appserver handle
>> on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk?]
>>
>> just wondering?
>>
>> at work they get about 200
>>
>> I think its pathetic
>
> I mean
>
> lol
>
> I would say 1000s ya?

Sigh... Why? Why would you say that?

1) How big is the OS in GB?
2) How big is the application in GB for each user?
3) How much data in GB must be loaded per user?

You still might only get 200 users with Forth ...


If there is no reduction in space consumed by using Forth, then the
result is the same.  So, it all depends on how much memory each of
those consume relative to the reduction in space from using Forth.

You're not going to be able to reduce the data loaded per user by much.
You might not be able to reduce the application size much by using
Forth either, but if you can then it would allow a few more users.  If
the OS is huge and you can get rid of it, then you might have some
significant savings.

Of course, for a business, it makes more sense to spend an additional
$5000 USD or even $50K of hardware to support more users than it does
to invest in programmers with salaries of $60K to $180K per year, every
year, year after year.  Also, after a few years, the business can sell
the hardware and reclaim anywhere from 30% to 50% of their inital cost.
I.e., $50K of hardware could save them $200K or more or less.  So,
 from a business perspective, efficiency is not always a top concern.

Lack cash-flow is usually the top concern of most businesses.  That's
followed by large costs, and then followed distantly by lack of profit.
That's in order of what is most likely to drive a business into bankruptcy
and cause it to cease to exist.  A defunct business means no jobs, no
salaries, no retirement funds, no company car or house for executives, etc.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28821

On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:58:58 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:32:52 -0500, gavino_himself  
> 
> <visploveslisp@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, February 21, 2014 7:57:24 PM UTC-8, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >> [InTitle: how many users active could a forth appserver handle
> 
> >> on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk?]
> 
> >>
> 
> >> just wondering?
> 
> >>
> 
> >> at work they get about 200
> 
> >>
> 
> >> I think its pathetic
> 
> >
> 
> > I mean
> 
> >
> 
> > lol
> 
> >
> 
> > I would say 1000s ya?
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh... Why? Why would you say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) How big is the OS in GB?
> 
> 2) How big is the application in GB for each user?
> 
> 3) How much data in GB must be loaded per user?
> 
> 
> 
> You still might only get 200 users with Forth ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no reduction in space consumed by using Forth, then the
> 
> result is the same.  So, it all depends on how much memory each of
> 
> those consume relative to the reduction in space from using Forth.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to be able to reduce the data loaded per user by much.
> 
> You might not be able to reduce the application size much by using
> 
> Forth either, but if you can then it would allow a few more users.  If
> 
> the OS is huge and you can get rid of it, then you might have some
> 
> significant savings.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, for a business, it makes more sense to spend an additional
> 
> $5000 USD or even $50K of hardware to support more users than it does
> 
> to invest in programmers with salaries of $60K to $180K per year, every
> 
> year, year after year.  Also, after a few years, the business can sell
> 
> the hardware and reclaim anywhere from 30% to 50% of their inital cost.
> 
> I.e., $50K of hardware could save them $200K or more or less.  So,
> 
>  from a business perspective, efficiency is not always a top concern.
> 
> 
> 
> Lack cash-flow is usually the top concern of most businesses.  That's
> 
> followed by large costs, and then followed distantly by lack of profit.
> 
> That's in order of what is most likely to drive a business into bankruptcy
> 
> and cause it to cease to exist.  A defunct business means no jobs, no
> 
> salaries, no retirement funds, no company car or house for executives, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

I agree

its never been a better time to throw hardware at the problem!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28839

42

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28847

> how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk?

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28856

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 10:54:57 AM UTC-8, Jason Damisch wrote:
> > how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu box with 2T disk?
> 
> 
> 
> How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

well lets assume 2 megs per active user ( a vast amount of memory accoring to Chuck Moore and others right? )

192000 megs / 2 is 96,000? or so? so that means when comapring to rails and other crap that publish numbers 960,000 users, since only about 1 of 10 will click or do something triggering an update in any given second.....


wwooowoooaooaaa!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29022

gavino_himself wrote:

> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 10:54:57 AM UTC-8, Jason Damisch wrote:
>> > how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu
>> > box with 2T disk?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
> 
> well lets assume 2 megs per active user ( a vast amount of memory accoring
> to Chuck Moore and others right? )
> 
> 192000 megs / 2 is 96,000? or so? so that means when comapring to rails
> and other crap that publish numbers 960,000 users, since only about 1 of
> 10 will click or do something triggering an update in any given
> second.....
> 
> 
> wwooowoooaooaaa!!


It is also dead easy to write an app where no one gets access, ever, in any 
language.  It depends on your talent and priorities, particularly if the app 
is never written.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29035

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC-7, marko wrote:
> gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On Saturday, March 1, 2014 10:54:57 AM UTC-8, Jason Damisch wrote:
> 
> >> > how many users active could a forth appserver handle on 192g ram 48cpu
> 
> >> > box with 2T disk?
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
> 
> > 
> 
> > well lets assume 2 megs per active user ( a vast amount of memory accoring
> 
> > to Chuck Moore and others right? )
> 
> > 
> 
> > 192000 megs / 2 is 96,000? or so? so that means when comapring to rails
> 
> > and other crap that publish numbers 960,000 users, since only about 1 of
> 
> > 10 will click or do something triggering an update in any given
> 
> > second.....
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > wwooowoooaooaaa!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also dead easy to write an app where no one gets access, ever, in any 
> 
> language.  It depends on your talent and priorities, particularly if the app 
> 
> is never written.

You sound so dumb with this post.  Are you a rich kid in a fucked up country where your parents are crony communists?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web