-
-
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Actually the part I was talking about was the "we achieved 1 physical IO per image served".2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Well, depending on number of images, number of requests and their distribution, this could be either good or very bad. :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@cmuratori Like for a static site that's really bad obviously, but for say some random image somebody linked on their Facebook feed, sure!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@cmuratori In that case, baked PAKs + metadata in RAM is better than a real FS filename lookup (which is likely to trigger its own IO).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous I'm just saying he's talking about optimizing physical IO, _but then they didn't do that_. Eg., https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/osdi10/tech/full_papers/Beaver.pdf …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous They just wrote a pack file, and then the only way they reduce the physical IOs is by switching to XFS :)2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous So I found that whole presentation really weird, because they kept saying stuff that wasn't what they did.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous But the _terminology_ they used made it sound like they either did (or thought they did) the _actual_ optimization.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous For example if they _actually did_ write a filesystem, then they _could_ have done a packing algorithm to minimize IO.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@cmuratori @rygorous But they didn't at all do that, even though they say the words that make it sound like they did.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.