On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 03:07:02PM -0400, Adam wrote:
> > > The question was about scalability.
> >
> > I keep seeing that term. Is it supposed to mean something?
>
> Yes, and retarded posts like this aren't needed thanks.
It isn't retarded. The term *is* fuzzy, and often abused, especially
in business speak.
For me, scalability means: if you hit a limit, you can add resources
(CPUs, RAM, complete servers behind a load balancer) to push the
limit up in a (hopefully) linear way.
So what about carp(4), pf(4), pfsync(4)? It's primary about
reliability, but it's also about "scalability".
OTH, there are people (managers) yelling "we have performance
problems", and who are happy if someone adds two or three servers
just because "something should be done". That's scalability in
business speak.[1]
> Its a very simple question. I know openbsd scales poorly in SMP, I
> know it scales poorly using apache, sendmail, courier, squid, mrtg
> nagois, etc. I just want to know what it is that it does scale well
> at.
Oh, so you've benchmarks? (SCNR)
Ciao,
Kili (EOT for me)
[1] Yes, this happened. "Felt" performance was poor, management was
going wild, staff added servers, actual performance didn't change,
but "felt" performance increased, since "they did somehing about
it".
