----- Original Message ----- From: tkaczma@gryf.net Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 1:36 PM Subject: Re: NVRAM memory
This is certainly not the 40% penalty you advertised.
Firstly, I never advertised 40% penalty in this particular case. I advertised a 20-40% penalty in another, far more general, case. As you admit, there's a lot more overhead involved that mentioned here; I was just trying to illustrate it simply for someone who had a simple question. For the full skinny, we'd need one of the coders or architects to post here, without telling us too much that is confidential. :)
I'm NOT against larger NVRAMs/write caches, I'm for more granular NVRAMs.
Well, you can be for it and that's fine. But larger NVRAM will help in write-intensive environment in the general case, and that is supported by actual experimental data. Perhaps in theory it should not be so, and perhaps Netapp does something stupid in their coding that makes it that way, but it's still a fact.
Bruce