Rob Warnock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > If "only" being useful is enough, 100 cycles is enough for a DNS server, > or an NTP server, or even a stub HTTP server that delivers some small > piece of real-time data, like a few realtime environmental sensors > [temperature, voltages, etc.].
Reminds me of Stuart Cheshire's description of how they managed to shoehorn zeroconf (aka bonjour, the artist formerly known as rendezvous) into a risible amount of ROM (less than 1K byte, if I recall correctly) left in an embedded microcontroller (for a video camera, I think). Zeroconf is at heart a few clever tricks on top of DNS (plus 169.254.* IPs), and in the end they managed by one more clever trick (the thingy ignores WHAT the request is for, and just spits out the same response each and every time -- pushing the boundaries of DNS but, it seems, still technically staying within those boundaries;-). Not directly relevant to the scaling debate (the camera's expected to be on a LAN, serving a few requests per second at most), but the limit being on bits rather than cycles somehow "tastes" similar to me. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
