From: Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: inefficient RT vs efficient non-RT
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:38:51 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <XFMail.20030113103851.pochini@shiny.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030112075844.GA16050@mark.mielke.cc>
> Think about it logically -- if I can process 5X as much data as you can on
> the same hardware, but I can't guarantee that *at* 5X no data will be lost,
> but then, I only run at 1X (the same speed as you), how many packets have
> a chance of being lost?
Real time systems are not supposed to be faster than non-RT ones. They
just provide a reliable response time.
Bye.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-13 9:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-12 7:58 inefficient RT vs efficient non-RT Mark Mielke
2003-01-12 8:04 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-12 8:28 ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-12 15:05 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-12 15:39 ` RT - who cares.. (Off Topic) Rob Wilkens
2003-01-13 9:38 ` Giuliano Pochini [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=XFMail.20030113103851.pochini@shiny.it \
--to=pochini@shiny.it \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox