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