25 Oct
1999
25 Oct
'99
4:05 p.m.
*snip*
*snip*
No kidding. I watched our vax 4000/500 with 128 megs of ram - a grotesque
amount in those days, but it could take more) pull something like 200 users
running ALLIN1, an office suite, which was a monstrous system hog. The
4000/500 did it without breaking a sweat. Hell, even a microvax II with
16 megs of ram could handle 5 or 6 users using that monstrosity. Many many
more if you just used normal applications. When I was at Intel our cluster
of 6000/mumbles carried 400-500 users using a VERY large CAM system, several
hundred data connections via tcpip, a massive database to support the CAM,
etc etc.
While a desktop PC may be able to smoke most vaxen for CPU performance, the
PC that can stand up and do a big vax's JOB doesn't exist. Vaxen were designed
for heavy continuous use. PCs were designed to be disposable.
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My main belief
is that nobody is going to keep a VAX anything running with
dozens of simultaneous users.
Eh? ROFLMAO. Sorry, but it appears to me that you have not been exposed to
these machines, or
you would not be making this statement...
So, if a VAX is to be something close
to "useful" today, it'll be in single-user mode. In that case, Integer
performance is very important.
I'll be sure and tell our Vax 6000-440 that one. It could probably use a
laugh.