Re: the IS-A function

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: the IS-A function
Date	2016-08-20 19:36 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87oa4msv91.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <53168bfe-8dcd-46cb-9fa1-cc369b9b9db9@googlegroups.com> <87pop4to9x.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> <062906a4-6b6b-4017-9d8b-02ca93bab295@googlegroups.com> <878tvrtjgq.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> <a47cb6ec-e9d6-497e-91af-c9b1eda04741@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes:
> However, as the N servers are each running at 100% CPU "as desired",
> they can receive no additional requests.

That's not how it works.  You can receive as many requests as you want.
They just take longer to process.  Since later requests are often
dependent on the results of earlier requests, your throughput stays the
same but you get fewer requests per minute from a given client.  There
are also scheduling priorities: you can have a long-running background
task that gives up cycles as needed to shorter requests.

I know I run my own machines at 100% on large computational tasks lots
of the time, but I can still do other stuff on the machine.  I don't
notice any difference in interactive response on most quick operations.
Bigger operations like compiles take noticably longer when the machine
is loaded but it's still not too bad.

> Load balancing changes nothing.  If you're at 100% CPU, then you
> either 1) need additional CPUs, or 2) need to squash a massive
> abuse/performance issue, 

If you have persistent overload then you do add more CPU's, such as by
calling an API to spin up additional VM's.  If it's sporadic then you
can choose to just live with it.  Think of rush hour on the freeway.

> 3) are running some kind of self-contained system where both resources
> and demands on resources are entirely under your control and balanced
> by you.

This is in fact often the situation.  Think of a video transcoding farm.

Thread

the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 23:10 -0700
  Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-16 00:22 -0700
  Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-16 14:01 -0700
  Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-16 14:20 -0700
    Re: the IS-A function JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-17 05:04 -0700
      Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 10:52 -0700
        Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 19:31 -0700
      Re: the IS-A function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-18 08:00 +0000
        Re: the IS-A function JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-18 21:52 -0700
    Re: the IS-A function Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 07:11 -0700
    Re: the IS-A function franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 23:13 -0700
      Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 11:59 -0700
        Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 15:11 -0700
          Re: the IS-A function franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 23:14 -0700
            Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 01:01 -0700
              Re: the IS-A function franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 03:14 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 13:31 +0300
                Re: the IS-A function Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 03:39 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 06:49 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 14:55 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 14:57 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 10:29 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 20:35 +0300
                Re: the IS-A function Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-20 10:53 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 11:01 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-20 19:36 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 20:15 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 14:53 -0700
              Re: the IS-A function Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-19 08:28 -0500
                Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 19:30 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-20 22:20 -0500
                Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 20:50 -0700
                OOP (was: the IS-A function) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:21 +0300
                Re: the IS-A function Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:42 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 14:16 +0200
                Re: the IS-A function Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 11:08 -0700
                Re: the IS-A function Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 21:25 +0200
                Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 12:01 -0700
      Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 17:08 -0700
        Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 00:29 -0700
          Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 11:01 -0700
            Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 14:45 -0700
    Re: the IS-A function Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 02:22 -0700
      Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 12:02 -0700
      Re: the IS-A function hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 18:31 -0700

csiph-web