(no title)
intothemild | 2 months ago
They didn't have this kind of compute back when the article was written. Which is the point in the article.
intothemild | 2 months ago
They didn't have this kind of compute back when the article was written. Which is the point in the article.
marcosdumay|2 months ago
yencabulator|2 months ago
Maxatar|2 months ago
2003 might seem like ancient history, but computers back then absolutely could handle 10,000 concurrent connections.
hinkley|2 months ago
fweimer|2 months ago
We're slowly getting back to similarly-sized systems. IBM now has POWER systems with more than 1,500 threads (although I assume those are SMT8 configurations). This is a bit annoying because too many programs assume that the CPU mask fits into 128 bytes, which limits the CPU (hardware thread) count to 1,024. We fixed a few of these bugs twenty years ago, but as these systems fell out of use, similar problems are back.
trueismywork|2 months ago
Should have prefixed my comment wirh "nowadays"