Re: Priority straw man

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 27 January 2014 10:38, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> > It would be cleaner if priority groups had the same cardinality as stream
> > identifiers. That would remove the edge case of more open streams than
> > groups.
>
> I assume here that you are talking about the case where you want to
> maintain greater than 2^24 open groups.
>
> I'm really not sympathetic to that scenario to be honest.  That's 16+
> million concurrent partitions.  Of course, I'd be impressed if you
> could prove that you were able to manage 16+ million-way-concurrency
> with anything better than random results.
>

assume independent clients so each connection becomes its own stream in its
own group

16+ million-way-concurrency -- beyond our capability currently, maybe
google can?
1+ million-way-concurrency -- possible on today's hardware

so we're within an order of magnitude or so of the limit for
application-specific software