| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Enterprise realtime and cooperative developmentEnterprise realtime and cooperative developmentPosted Dec 6, 2007 14:56 UTC (Thu) by niv (subscriber, #8656)In reply to: Enterprise realtime and cooperative development by skitching Parent article: Enterprise realtime and cooperative development
"The real-time one will guarantee that the buy program runs within a fixed period (eg 100ms). But the non-realtime one will *usually* win the race." Just out of curiosity, why do say that the non-realtime one will usually win? Are you assuming real-time guarantees come at the _expense_ of latency? Isn't it usually the other way around?
(Log in to post comments)
Enterprise realtime and cooperative development Posted Dec 6, 2007 17:55 UTC (Thu) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link] Lower latency guarantees usually come at the cost of lower throughput. However, you can scale up throughput by increasing the CPU power you have available (within Amdahl's Law, etc); the same is not, necessarily, true for latency.
|
|
||||||||||||