D vs. C#

[BCS]

Reply to 0ffh,

> David Wilson wrote:
> 
>> On 23/10/2007, 0ffh <spam at frankhirsch.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> It sounds like they discovered, that for any resonable amount of
>>> money to spend on hardware, they'd be better of with cheap, fast,
>>> but "wrong" off- the-shelf hardware and software emulation than with
>>> some expensive custom made piece of metal that runs their stuff
>>> natively.
>>> 
>> This is *not* the case. Current hardware virtualization cannot reach
>> the performance of software paravirtualization for various reasons.
>> Hardware nested page table support being the most often mentioned -
>> many common ops are still very expensive under current
>> Vanderpool/Pacifica, some worse than cooperative virt. See e.g.
>> http://project-xen.web.cern.ch/project-xen/xen/hardware.html (search
>> for "memory management").
>> 
>> Current virtualization hardware tech was pushed out the door to take
>> advantage of the virtualization bubble last year/two ago. It is very
>> wrong to assume that just because there is "hardware support" it's
>> going to be "faster" (for some easily quantifiable value of faster),
>> useful, or both.
>> 
> There is just *no* *effing* *way* anything could be faster without
> hardware support compared to with. The ultimate hardware support
> is putting your sw into silicon. No way around here, just forget it.
> Complain to glod. It's just like that.
> Regards, Frank
> 


OTOH Intel can spend a LOT more time and money getting there chips fast than 
most people can. If you can throw that kind of resources at it, you can make 
it faster. If all you can do is put it on a PCI card, forget it. Somewhere 
in between, they switch places. The question is where. It could be that right 
now, that point isn't yet practical.