*snip*
> > 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.
*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_at_DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon Oct 25 1999 - 23:05:48 BST