Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!rik From: rik@june.cs.washington.edu (Rik Littlefield) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Balanced system - a tentative defin Summary: Suggests that "balanced" should mean equal gain for equal investment in all parts. Message-ID: <5497@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: 16 Aug 88 16:42:56 GMT References: <794@cernvax.UUCP> <28200188@urbsdc> <11857@steinmetz.ge.com> Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Lines: 24 In article <11857@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > ... I suspect that what you mean is > "a system with equal bottlenecks in all portions, such that doubling the > performance of any one part will produce an equal improvement in > performance." > > A balanced system (matthews definition, not mine) is a very > *inexpensive* implementation, in that no part has unused capacity which > has added expense without adding performance. A bit of apples and oranges here. The first paragraph relates improved *performance* in a part to improved performance of the whole. The second paragraph relates increased *investment* in a part to performance of the whole. I think most people implicitly use investment/performance. (Bangs per buck, right?) If I can get 20% net improvement by sinking $50 into part A or $30 into part B, you can bet I'll choose B regardless of what the individual performance hikes are. --Rik Littlefield #include std.disclaimer