Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!oddjob!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!aglew
From: aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Balanced system - a tentative defin
Message-ID: <28200189@urbsdc>
Date: 16 Aug 88 13:31:00 GMT
References: <794@cernvax.UUCP>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:cernvax.UUCP:794:urbsdc:28200189:000:658
Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew    Aug 16 08:31:00 1988


>  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.
> 
>	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)

(1) I was referring to expense on the part of the manufacturer,
    not customer - the manufacturer would have to build the
    whole thing over again for version N+1.
It often happens that designing in extra capacity in one subsystem
costs nothing at all in design -- and may end up saving the
customer money in the long run. How many people swapped up
processors on their IBM PC systems?

(2) Cost functions are strongly non-linear.