| ▲ | captn3m0 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The M4 Max MacBook I'm using to write this would've ranked among the 50 fastest supercomputers on Earth in 2009. I attempted to validate this: You'd need >75 TFlop/s to get into the top50 in the TOP500[0] rankings in 2009. M4 Max review says 18.4 TFlop/s at FP32, but TOP500 uses LINPACK, which uses FP64 precision. An M2 benchmark gives a 1:4 ratio for double precision, so you'd get maybe 9 TFlop/s at FP64? That wouldn't make it to TOP500 in 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | nine_k 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Now multiply that by thousands of concurrent connections each doing multiple I/O operations. Servers spent ~95% of their time waiting for I/O operations. Well, no. The particular thread of execution might have been spending 95% of time waiting for I/O, but a server (the machine serving the thousands of connections) would easily run at 70%-80% of CPU utilization (because above that, tail latency starts to suffer badly). If your server had 5% CPU utilization under full load, you were not running enough parallel processes, or did not install enough RAM to do so. Well, it's a technicality, but the post is devoted to technicalities, and such small blunders erode the trust to the rest of the post. (I'm saying this as a fan of Bun.) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | fleebee 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm guessing that's an LLM hallucination. The conclusion section especially has some hints it was pulled out of an LLM: > The package managers we benchmarked weren't built wrong, they were solutions designed for the constraints of their time. > Buns approach wasn't revolutionary, it was just willing to look at what actually slows things down today. > Installing packages 25x faster isn't "magic": it's what happens when tools are built for the hardware we actually have. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | LollipopYakuza 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> even low-end smartphones have more RAM than high-end servers had in 2009 That's even less accurate. By two orders of magnitude. High-end servers in 2009 had way more than 4GB. The (not even high-end) HP Proliant I installed for a small business in 2008, that was already bought used at the time, had 128GB of RAM. I understand why one would want to make an article entertaining but that seriously makes me doubt the rest of the articles when diving into a topic I don't know as much. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||