VB .NET $$$ Up or Stable? - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: VB .NET $$$ Up or Stable?

  1. #31
    Dave Rothgery Guest

    Re: VB .NET $$$ Up or Stable?

    "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:
    > "Bob O`Bob" <bob@cluestick.org> wrote in message


    > >
    > > I guess I've "fallen for it" then, because NT doesn't scale.


    > > Clustering does serve the same purpose, and often does so at
    > > reduced total cost, but it is not really the same thing.


    I should clarify what I meant here. When people argue that it's impossible
    to build really large scale systems (particularly the server-side web stuff
    that I do, and like doing) on Windows, I usually think the person making the
    case is either uninformed or a *nix bigot.

    Granted, there are some apps that really take a really huge server with a
    lot of CPUs, and with the possible exception of the 2000 series of MS
    enterprise apps, there isn't much out there that scales beyond 4-8
    CPUs/server right now, but how often are there real-world apps that require
    a ton of horsepower and don't scale out?

    > Bob, uh... ever hear of Windows 200 DataCenter Server?
    > I think THAT puppy probably "scales" just fine. Never put mits
    > to it myself, but from what specs I've read...it should f'n
    > ro...uh,..scale well<g>.


    I haven't seen any independent numbers on DataCenter Server yet.
    What I consider a fair test:

    Give Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and Red Hat a budget of $500K (or something around
    that) to build a highly scalable app [detailed spec provided] -- they can
    spend the cash however they like, though all programmer time will be figured
    at a fixed, hourly rate. Tell all the participants at the start what numbers
    you're trying to maximize.

    Then run performance and reliability numbers on the resulting app. No using
    beta software.

    I'd bet that you'd get 4 really different solutions in terms of how they
    were architected, and there wouldn't be too much of a performance
    difference.

    --
    David A. Rothgery
    Consultant
    Spherion, Inc.
    davidrothgery@spherion.com
    drothgery@myrealbox.com



  2. #32
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: VB .NET $$$ Up or Stable?


    "Dave Rothgery" <drothgery@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:39e4a63b$1@news.devx.com...
    > "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:
    > > "Bob O`Bob" <bob@cluestick.org> wrote in message

    >
    > > >
    > > > I guess I've "fallen for it" then, because NT doesn't scale.

    >
    > > > Clustering does serve the same purpose, and often does so at
    > > > reduced total cost, but it is not really the same thing.

    >
    > I should clarify what I meant here. When people argue that it's impossible
    > to build really large scale systems (particularly the server-side web

    stuff
    > that I do, and like doing) on Windows, I usually think the person making

    the
    > case is either uninformed or a *nix bigot.
    >
    > Granted, there are some apps that really take a really huge server with a
    > lot of CPUs, and with the possible exception of the 2000 series of MS
    > enterprise apps, there isn't much out there that scales beyond 4-8
    > CPUs/server right now, but how often are there real-world apps that

    require
    > a ton of horsepower and don't scale out?
    >
    > > Bob, uh... ever hear of Windows 200 DataCenter Server?
    > > I think THAT puppy probably "scales" just fine. Never put mits
    > > to it myself, but from what specs I've read...it should f'n
    > > ro...uh,..scale well<g>.

    >
    > I haven't seen any independent numbers on DataCenter Server yet.
    > What I consider a fair test:
    >
    > Give Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and Red Hat a budget of $500K (or something

    around
    > that) to build a highly scalable app [detailed spec provided] -- they can
    > spend the cash however they like, though all programmer time will be

    figured
    > at a fixed, hourly rate. Tell all the participants at the start what

    numbers
    > you're trying to maximize.
    >
    > Then run performance and reliability numbers on the resulting app. No

    using
    > beta software.
    >
    > I'd bet that you'd get 4 really different solutions in terms of how they
    > were architected, and there wouldn't be too much of a performance
    > difference.
    >


    Yup...and give then 48 hours tops to have the app running from the time the
    starters' pistol goes off.
    They don't get to see the spec in advance - except in very general terms.
    Now THERE'S a "shootout" competition setting for ya!<g>




  3. #33
    Dave Rothgery Guest

    Re: VB .NET $$$ Up or Stable?

    "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message
    > "Dave Rothgery" <drothgery@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
    > news:39e4a63b$1@news.devx.com...
    > > "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:
    > > > Bob, uh... ever hear of Windows 200 DataCenter Server?
    > > > I think THAT puppy probably "scales" just fine. Never put mits
    > > > to it myself, but from what specs I've read...it should f'n
    > > > ro...uh,..scale well<g>.

    > >
    > > I haven't seen any independent numbers on DataCenter Server yet.
    > > What I consider a fair test:
    > >
    > > Give Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and Red Hat a budget of $500K (or something
    > > around that) to build a highly scalable app [detailed spec provided]
    > > -- they can spend the cash however they like, though all programmer
    > > time will be figured at a fixed, hourly rate. Tell all the
    > > participants at the start what numbers you're trying to maximize.
    > >
    > > Then run performance and reliability numbers on the resulting app.
    > > No using beta software.
    > >
    > > I'd bet that you'd get 4 really different solutions in terms of how they
    > > were architected, and there wouldn't be too much of a performance
    > > difference.

    >
    > Yup...and give then 48 hours tops to have the app running from the time

    the
    > starters' pistol goes off.


    Note that I want a _realistic_ test. Nobody (or at least no one with any
    real understanding of software) is going spend $500K on a system and spend
    only a week developing _and testing_ it (even given a complete spec [on the
    UI level] was already developed). They get at least a month to work on this.
    I don't want to see a 'we don't have time for design documents' mentality;
    the idea is to have something that would really be usable in a production
    environment at the end.

    --
    David A. Rothgery
    Consultant
    Spherion, Inc.
    davidrothgery@spherion.com
    drothgery@myrealbox.com



  4. #34
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: VB .NET $$$ Up or Stable?

    Mark: Previous post: 54 lines quoted, 4 lines added.
    Please quote sensibly!
    ---
    Phil Weber



  5. #35
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: VB .NET $$$ Up or Stable?


    "Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote in message
    news:39e8804c@news.devx.com...
    > Mark: Previous post: 54 lines quoted, 4 lines added.
    > Please quote sensibly!


    Oops... sorry.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center