Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer |
|
PerlMonks |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: writing to the top of a fileby jepri (Parson) |
on May 22, 2004 at 01:12 UTC ( [id://355509]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Yep, this is a susupect test. The files will still be hot in memory, confounding your attempts to measure them. Plus, any professional strength backup solution will cope with small files just fine. That's why people have written things like database systems to optimize the storage and retrieval of data from disks. People wrote database systems so they could efficiently store and search relational data. Programmers abused databases because they were faster than the shitty filesystem drivers most vendors shipped. This is no longer the case, but I am continuously deluged by sweaty little morlocks who tell me that the solution to all data storage problems is a relational database. In general, they just use it as a hash table, which is something that filesystems are much better at today. Your objections are based on using consumer grade hardware. Run your own example, but look at the disk I/O meter. You will see that your benchmark is I/O bound - something that can only be improved by better hardware. If you are just running a site for a few friends, my solution will be great. If you are running a big site with lots of hits, you'll have I/O channels that work at bus speeds, and my solution will still be great. All your post says is that you have shitty hardware, and you're generalising that to 'the world has shitty hardware'. And the votes are going the way thay are because there are more readers who are deluded that their P4-3Ghz is the best computer in the world, and have no idea that a $100k 1Ghz Sun server will beat the pants off it in every test that counts... like handling small files.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|