Re: Asynchronous

[Kyle Creyts <kyle.creyts () gmail com>]

Everybody always worries about cores, threads, and processing... what about
similarly capable storage to feed these processing units? Rapid-write,
redundancy, and rapid-read. Pick two, throw the third out.

What about a storage model that better supports distributed and asynchronous
workloads? Or even just large sequential ones?

And seriously? Spinning discs? So passe. We've been using them for how many
years now?
On Oct 6, 2011 7:58 PM, "Hatta" <tmdhat () gmail com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Dave Aitel <dave () immunityinc com> wrote:
> > So while I'm in the process of running a large asynchronous event-driven
> > product in a VM in another window, it's a good time to read all sorts of
> > things about asynchronous programming.
> >
> > Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of it, but Chris is, and he's a better
> > programmer than me, so we'll leave it at that. Largely, I think people
are
> > fans of Async because most languages and kernels are terrible at threads.
> > Python, for example, does not have threads. "No worky worky", as we say
> > around here.
>
> It's not really assertive to say "python does not have threads"
> It's just that threads does not work as we expected in CPython
> specially (but not only) because of the Global Interpreter Lock.
>
> whatver...
>
> I believe we're moving towards the massive use of threads in a near future
> because processors are likely to grow in cores not in speed. with many
cores
> many threads become reasonable.
>
> I'm pretty sure many will disagree --- that's the fun part of
> discussion after all.
>
> --
> Hatta
> _______________________________________________
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave