belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) (04/21/91)
I've seen the 700-series boxes, and I'm impressed! But I've been attempting to get some stats (or at least some opinions!) on the multi-user performance of these machines (so far with little success). Can anyone out there give some insight into this? I imagine it should be good (say for up to 16 or so users), given the speed (processor, disc, I/O bus, etc.). I also imagine that the only practical way to use them muti-user would be through the use of a LAN-based terminal server (which is OK by me). What I am interested in is connecting a number of "dumb" terminals, NOT additional workstations! It seems to me that given the price/performance of these machines, they should be able to make a serious dent in the market for small systems (business, accounting, etc). which is now being served by 386 and 486 machines running DOS or Xenix. I for one would much rather install a 700-series box running HP-UX and a bunch of terminals!! If this is a viable "entry-level" multi-user system, then I'm really excited! My intuition tells me that it should easily outperform a 386/486 running Xenix with up to 16 users. Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm right! :-) +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Hershel Belkin hp9000/825(HP-UX)| UUCP: teecs!belkin | | Test Equipment Engineering Computing Services |Phone: 416 249-1231 x2647| | Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | FAX: 416 246-2016 | +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
jgm@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (John Mcbride) (04/24/91)
/ hpdmd48:comp.sys.hp / belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) / 9:42 am Apr 21, 1991 / I've seen the 700-series boxes, and I'm impressed! But I've been attempting to get some stats (or at least some opinions!) on the multi-user performance of these machines (so far with little success). Can anyone out there give some insight into this? I imagine it should be good (say for up to 16 or so users), given the speed (processor, disc, I/O bus, etc.). I also imagine that the only practical way to use them muti-user would be through the use of a LAN-based terminal server (which is OK by me). What I am interested in is connecting a number of "dumb" terminals, NOT additional workstations! +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Hershel Belkin hp9000/825(HP-UX)| UUCP: teecs!belkin | | Test Equipment Engineering Computing Services |Phone: 416 249-1231 x2647| | Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | FAX: 416 246-2016 | +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ ---------- I would look into connecting the X-terminals HP just announced to a Snakes. I think the performance would be better than a 386 or 486 PC. (Of course, comparing X-terminals to PCs as about as great of an apples to oranges comparison as you can get, but I thought I would make it anyway.) John McBride
jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) (04/25/91)
In article <29280004@teecs.UUCP>, belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) writes: > I imagine it should be good (say for up to 16 or so users), given > the speed (processor, disc, I/O bus, etc.). I also imagine that > the only practical way to use them muti-user would be through > the use of a LAN-based terminal server (which is OK by me). What > I am interested in is connecting a number of "dumb" terminals, NOT > additional workstations! We use Annex termninal servers (the new Annex III looks really nice, BTW) to connect dumb terminals over TCP/IP to an 835 and 815. Multi-user on the 835 is good, with about 20 terminal users on average. Since we (the IT dept.) are also running X clients off the 835, it is supporting more than just the terminals. All the info I've seen so far seems to indicate that any of the 700's should blow away an 835, so your only trouble may be in having to pay for a multi-user license. > It seems to me that given the price/performance of these machines, > they should be able to make a serious dent in the market for > small systems (business, accounting, etc). which is now being > served by 386 and 486 machines running DOS or Xenix. I for one > would much rather install a 700-series box running HP-UX and a > bunch of terminals!! If this is a viable "entry-level" multi-user > system, then I'm really excited! My intuition tells me that > it should easily outperform a 386/486 running Xenix with up to > 16 users. Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm right! :-) I would bet that you are right, but unless it's very easy to attach third-party SCSI drives to the 700 SCSI bus, adding disk and tape drives would be less expensive for an Intel-based machine. Also, while there are cheap terminal servers, really good (i.e. easy to work with) TS's are not that cheap. Quality serial port hardware can be had for a 386 for about $100 per port, sometimes less. So, while an HP 700 with dumb terminals would make a very well performing system, it may not be the most cost-effective over a long period for a small business (I'd imagine that the cost of HP support and maintenance would be hard for a small business to swallow). ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc. 615/821-4022 x. 651
Markku.Savela@tel.vtt.fi (Markku Savela) (04/25/91)
In article <825@tiamat.fsc.com> jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) writes: >All the info I've seen so far seems to indicate that any of the 700's >should blow away an 835, so your only trouble may be in having to >pay for a multi-user license. How does HP-UX count a user that must have a licence? While back I someone mentioned in a article, that it would even count individual X windows or at least clients as a user each. This got me a bit worried and we called local HP. At least the local salesman here replied that actually 2 users licence is enough for any number actual users, if they come in from network connection (e.g. ethernet device is one user, console device another; any number of telnet sessions and x clients could be started without exceeding the user limit). Was the person giving wrong info or not? -- Markku Savela (savela@tel.vtt.fi), Technical Research Centre of Finland Telecommunications Laboratory, Otakaari 7 B, SF-02150 ESPOO, Finland
hart@hppad.waterloo.hp.com (Tony Hart) (04/26/91)
In comp.sys.hp, jgm@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (John Mcbride) writes: > I would look into connecting the X-terminals HP just announced to a > Snakes. I think the performance would be better than a 386 or 486 > PC. (Of course, comparing X-terminals to PCs as about as great of an apples > to oranges comparison as you can get, but I thought I would make it anyway.) > John McBride Here's at least one data point, demonstrated at the press conference for the new HP 700/RX X terminals: A HP 9000/720 was used as the compute server for three HP 700/RX 19Ca color X terminals. A standalone color SPARCStation 2 was used for comparison purposes. All three terminals and the SPARCStation simultaneously ran an identical McDonnell Douglas Unigraphics CAD/CAM application. Even running three copies of the application, the HP configuration was 30% faster than the single copy running on the standalone SUN. The cost per seat of the SUN workstation was about 50% more expensive than the HP solution. Bear in mind that this was the least-powerful Snakes machine and the most-powerful SUN. If you don't need SPARCStation 2-level performance, you can add more X terminals and still get good average performance (peak performance will come close to that of a standalone 720). Tony Hart, Panacom Automation Division, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd. All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect an official statement of the Hewlett-Packard Company.
coulter@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Michael A. Coulter) (04/26/91)
I think the 700's only come with 8-user licenses. Not an official HP statement, just my recollection. -- Michael Coulter coulter@hpclisp.cup.hp.com
corrigan@weber.ucsd.edu (Michael J. Corrigan) (04/27/91)
In article <5589@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi> savela@tel.vtt.fi (Markku Savela) writes: >In article <825@tiamat.fsc.com> jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) writes: > >>All the info I've seen so far seems to indicate that any of the 700's >>should blow away an 835, so your only trouble may be in having to >>pay for a multi-user license. > > How does HP-UX count a user that must have a licence? While back I >someone mentioned in a article, that it would even count individual >X windows or at least clients as a user each. This got me a bit >worried and we called local HP. At least the local salesman here replied >that actually 2 users licence is enough for any number actual users, >if they come in from network connection (e.g. ethernet device is one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >user, console device another; any number of telnet sessions and x ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >clients could be started without exceeding the user limit). > > Was the person giving wrong info or not? > I would have to say the that would be a rather generous implementation of a 2-user license. In my experience it doesn't work that way. It seems close to correct to say that you are allowed 2 distinct (username,hostname/tty) pairs. Thus if a person logs in on the console and another over a tty, then no network logins via rlogin or telnet are allowed. Another example, if userA logs in via telnet from hostA and userA also logs in from hostB via rlogin/telnet, then no tty logins (including console) are allowed and no further rlogins except by userA from either hostA or hostB. Any number of these latter are allowed. In practice on our 2-user 834's: "xlogin" is run by init. The console user logs in ( and stays logged in perpetually running as many clients as they want). Say that they then also log in over the ethernet from some host. Then no further logins succeed over the ethernet even root, except for more logins by the same person from the same remote host. If it is the same person from a second distinct remote host, then "Sorry. Maximum number of users logged in." This actually seems restrictive. We had anticipated two usernames with any number of connections via both ttys and rlogin being allowed. I haven't figured out how it actually figures out the maximum users, though. There are a few situations where I sometimes seem to get 3 distinct logins. It would be nice to know what the actual algorithm is ( if login is looking at utmp entries that have certain values in certain fields, that would rather easy to circumvent - I don't think that is how it is done) -Mike Corrigan corrigan@ucsd.edu
tonyc@a4430ux.HP.COM ( Tony Cox (SR) ) (04/27/91)
/ a4430ux:comp.sys.hp / coulter@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Michael A. Coulter) / 2:23 pm Apr 25, 1991 /
>>I think the 700's only come with 8-user licenses.<<
Just a minor correction....the 700 comes with a 2 user license
that is upgradeable to a 32 user license. One user is typically
the bit map console and any other users coming through the
network all count collectively for the other user.
tonyc
Not an official HP statement, just my recollection.
-- Michael Coulter coulter@hpclisp.cup.hp.com
----------gordon@maxwell.waterloo.edu (Gordon R. Strachan) (04/27/91)
In article <48580023@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com> coulter@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Michael A. Coulter) writes: > >I think the 700's only come with 8-user licenses. > >Not an official HP statement, just my recollection. > This is what I was told but I really don't understand why. This is a pretty serious problem for us in buying this machine. I really do need at least a sixteen user license. For the life of me I can't understand why larger licenses are available for the 300's than are for the 700's. Hopefully someone at HP is listening and will soon rectify this over sight. >-- Michael Coulter coulter@hpclisp.cup.hp.com Gordon
coulter@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Michael A. Coulter) (04/29/91)
I have gotten a couple of letters indicating that a 32 user license is on the price list. This is not an HP statement, just mine. -- Michael Coulter coulter@hpda.cup.hp.com
ianhogg@cs.umn.edu (Ian J. Hogg) (04/30/91)
In article <5253@network.ucsd.edu> corrigan@weber.ucsd.edu (Michael J. Corrigan) writes: >In article <5589@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi> savela@tel.vtt.fi (Markku Savela) writes: >>In article <825@tiamat.fsc.com> jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) writes: >> >>>All the info I've seen so far seems to indicate that any of the 700's >>>should blow away an 835, so your only trouble may be in having to >>>pay for a multi-user license. >> >> How does HP-UX count a user that must have a licence? While back I >>someone mentioned in a article, that it would even count individual >>X windows or at least clients as a user each. This got me a bit >>worried and we called local HP. At least the local salesman here replied >>that actually 2 users licence is enough for any number actual users, >>if they come in from network connection (e.g. ethernet device is one > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>user, console device another; any number of telnet sessions and x >^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>clients could be started without exceeding the user limit). >> >> Was the person giving wrong info or not? >> > > I would have to say the that would be a rather generous >implementation of a 2-user license. In my experience it doesn't work >that way. It seems close to correct to say that you are allowed >2 distinct (username,hostname/tty) pairs. >Thus if a person logs in on the console and another over a tty, then >no network logins via rlogin or telnet are allowed. > >Another example, if userA logs in via telnet from hostA and userA also logs >in from hostB via rlogin/telnet, then no tty logins (including console) >are allowed and no further rlogins except by userA from either hostA or >hostB. Any number of these latter are allowed. > >In practice on our 2-user 834's: >"xlogin" is run by init. The console user logs in ( and stays logged >in perpetually running as many clients as they want). Say that >they then also log in over the ethernet from some host. >Then no further logins succeed over the ethernet even root, except for >more logins by the same person from the same remote host. If it is the same >person from a second distinct remote host, then >"Sorry. Maximum number of users logged in." > >This actually seems restrictive. We had anticipated two usernames with >any number of connections via both ttys and rlogin being allowed. > >I haven't figured out how it actually figures out the maximum users, though. >There are a few situations where I sometimes seem to get 3 distinct logins. >It would be nice to know what the actual algorithm is ( if login is looking >at utmp entries that have certain values in certain fields, that would >rather easy to circumvent - I don't think that is how it is done) > >-Mike Corrigan >corrigan@ucsd.edu This what you can actually do with a 2 user license (at least on our 300's & 400's) from HP-UX 6.x to the last version I used (7.something). You are allowed to have logins on 2 devices simultaneously. A device is either a tty, the console, or a pty. All logins on pty's count as a single device. With this scheme we have had much more than 5 users logged in via telnet, remsh, and whatever. When I ran xdm on the HP's the kernel never thought that more than one user was logged in. When I switched to VUE howver, I found out it's login manager logged a login on the console. Then the user's hpterm's logged in via pty's. This locked out the machine for uucp dialin's because it thought 2 users were logged in. I wrote a program to fix the utmp entry so that console counted as one of the pty logins. HP sent me a patch for login to bypass this problem. I see no reason whatsoever for the faked login on the console. -- =============================================================================== Ian Hogg ianhogg@cs.umn.edu (612) 225-1401
nenaas@ulrik.uio.no (Nils-Eivind Naas) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr27.163711.6974@sunee.waterloo.edu> gordon@maxwell.waterloo.edu (Gordon R. Strachan) writes: Path: ulrik!ifi!kth.se!eru!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!sunee!maxwell!gordon From: gordon@maxwell.waterloo.edu (Gordon R. Strachan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Date: 27 Apr 91 16:37:11 GMT References: <29280004@teecs.UUCP> <48580023@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com> Sender: news@sunee.waterloo.edu Organization: University of Waterloo Lines: 17 In article <48580023@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com> coulter@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Michael A. Coulter) writes: > >I think the 700's only come with 8-user licenses. > >Not an official HP statement, just my recollection. > This is what I was told but I really don't understand why. This is a pretty serious problem for us in buying this machine. I really do need at least a sixteen user license. For the life of me I can't understand why larger licenses are available for the 300's than are for the 700's. Hopefully someone at HP is listening and will soon rectify this over sight. >-- Michael Coulter coulter@hpclisp.cup.hp.com Gordon I was offered, and ordered, a multi-user extension to the 2-user licence on a 720. The HP part number is 82359A, and is stated to be a 32-user licence. My salesman may have made a typing error,however; I distinctly remember him mentioning a 16-user licence in our first conversation. I will not know for certain until delivery is made some time in July, but all the evidence points to the availability of at least 16-user licences. Nils-Eivind Naas, ISAF,Oslo nen@isaf.no or nenaas@ulrik.uio.no
mike@UC780.UMD.EDU (Mike Santangelo) (05/01/91)
In article <NENAAS.91Apr30101122@ulrik.uio.no>, nenaas@ulrik.uio.no (Nils-Eivind Naas) writes: >In article <1991Apr27.163711.6974@sunee.waterloo.edu> gordon@maxwell.waterloo.edu (Gordon R. Strachan) writes: > > Path: ulrik!ifi!kth.se!eru!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!sunee!maxwell!gordon > From: gordon@maxwell.waterloo.edu (Gordon R. Strachan) > Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp > Date: 27 Apr 91 16:37:11 GMT > References: <29280004@teecs.UUCP> <48580023@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com> > Sender: news@sunee.waterloo.edu > Organization: University of Waterloo > Lines: 17 > > In article <48580023@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com> coulter@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Michael A. Coulter) writes: > > > >I think the 700's only come with 8-user licenses. > > > >Not an official HP statement, just my recollection. > > > > This is what I was told but I really don't understand why. This is a pretty > serious problem for us in buying this machine. I really do need at least > a sixteen user license. For the life of me I can't understand why larger > licenses are available for the 300's than are for the 700's. Hopefully > someone at HP is listening and will soon rectify this over sight. > > >-- Michael Coulter coulter@hpclisp.cup.hp.com > > > Gordon > >I was offered, and ordered, a multi-user extension to the 2-user licence >on a 720. The HP part number is 82359A, and is stated to be a 32-user licence. >My salesman may have made a typing error,however; I distinctly remember him >mentioning a 16-user licence in our first conversation. > >I will not know for certain until delivery is made some time in July, but all >the evidence points to the availability of at least 16-user licences. > >Nils-Eivind Naas, ISAF,Oslo nen@isaf.no or nenaas@ulrik.uio.no I have the HP Apollo 9000 Series 700 U.S. Price Guide in front of me. Page 52: Prod # B2353A: HP-UX 8.05 Run-Time Environment, 32-user. $1,895.00 (list) -AAH: DDS distribution $ 395.00 -AAU: CD-ROM certificate n/a Academic Computing discounts for software are up to 90% btw. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Michael F. Santangelo + Inet: mike@uc780.umd.edu VMS / UNIX Systems + mike@socrates.umd.edu Academic Computing UMUC + Bnet: MIKE@UC780 (The University of Maryland, + MIKE@UMUC (not visited often) University College) +<Your clever net-phrase here>
steve-t@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Steve Taylor) (05/01/91)
/comp.sys.hp/ corrigan@weber.ucsd.edu (Michael J. Corrigan) /
| In practice on our 2-user 834's:
I believe I've seen something that indicates that the 834, 844, and
several 6xx's are a special case with a more restrictive algorithm
than the usual one on HP-UX.
Regards, Steve taylor
NOT A STATEMENT, OFFICIAL OR OTHERWISE, OF THE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY.munir@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Munir Mallal) (05/01/91)
>This is what I was told but I really don't understand why. This is a pretty >serious problem for us in buying this machine. I really do need at least >a sixteen user license. For the life of me I can't understand why larger >licenses are available for the 300's than are for the 700's. Hopefully >someone at HP is listening and will soon rectify this over sight. Perhaps you can describe the problem that you are trying to solve. How and where are these 16 users coming from? Munir Mallal PS: I may not be able to change the situation, but we may be able to fix your problem. Although I work for HP, I do not have the authority to represent anything other than my personal opinion.
raf@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rick Ferreri) (05/03/91)
> > How does HP-UX count a user that must have a licence? While back I > someone mentioned in a article, that it would even count individual > X windows or at least clients as a user each. This got me a bit > worried and we called local HP. At least the local salesman here replied > that actually 2 users licence is enough for any number actual users, > if they come in from network connection (e.g. ethernet device is one > user, console device another; any number of telnet sessions and x > clients could be started without exceeding the user limit). > > Was the person giving wrong info or not? > > -- > Markku Savela (savela@tel.vtt.fi), Technical Research Centre of Finland > Telecommunications Laboratory, Otakaari 7 B, SF-02150 ESPOO, Finland > ---------- Actually, I believe that both statements are true in spirit. To the best of my knowledge, there are two different user counting schemes used on HP-UX systems. *Most* systems use the second algorithm that you describe (where all network logins collectively count as 1 user on the system). A more restrictive algorithm is used on other systems. The more restrictive algorithm counts network logins differently. I believe that xterm's and hpterm's are *essentially* ignored (on some versions of HP-UX, I think that hpterm's and xterm's are lumped in with the collective 1 count for network logins and on newer versions, hpterm's and xterm's are not counted at all). The number of users allowed on your system and the counting algorithm used are determined by the machine type and/or the license level purchased with the OS. Please contact your local HP sales rep for details on the particular system that you are interested in. Rick Ferreri Hewlett-Packard Disclaimer: ----------- The information provided above is not an official statement of Hewlett-Packard. This information may be inaccurate or incomplete. Please contact your local HP Sales Office for an official statement.
belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) (05/06/91)
I too have been informed that some systems (notably the 700 series, but possibly others) treat all network-origin logins as one user. While this is a nice benefit to those planning to connect terminals via network terminal servers, it seems to bring up another question... How will this affect license costs of third-party software? I know of several large organizations which base their charges on the O/S user license level rather than (or as well as) the machine model. Their reasoning is that someone using their software on an 835 with a 64-user license should pay more than someone running on the same machine with a 16-user license. Makes sense. But now we come along with our 2-user 730 (which actually has 100 terminals connected via a terminal server)! Do we get away with the cheap third-party license since we only have a "2-user" system? Of course, we could just throw this problem back on the third-party software manufacturer and let them control and license _their_ software for a certain number of users. (A number of vendors do it this way, which to me makes more sense). What do others say? If a vendor simply asks what our HP-UX user-license is, do we keep quiet about the actual number of users logging in?? +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Hershel Belkin hp9000/825(HP-UX)| UUCP: teecs!belkin | | Test Equipment Engineering Computing Services |Phone: 416 249-1231 x2647| | Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | FAX: 416 246-2016 | +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
ian@rathe.cs.umn.edu (Ian Hogg) (05/08/91)
In article <29280006@teecs.UUCP> belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) writes: >I too have been informed that some systems (notably the 700 series, but >possibly others) treat all network-origin logins as one user. While >this is a nice benefit to those planning to connect terminals via >network terminal servers, it seems to bring up another question... > >How will this affect license costs of third-party software? I know >of several large organizations which base their charges on the >O/S user license level rather than (or as well as) the machine model. >Their reasoning is that someone using their software on an 835 with >a 64-user license should pay more than someone running on the same >machine with a 16-user license. Makes sense. But now we come along >with our 2-user 730 (which actually has 100 terminals connected via >a terminal server)! Do we get away with the cheap third-party license >since we only have a "2-user" system? Well you can get screwed both ways. What if you really only want 1 or people to use it? We've had the situation where only 1 person used an 8xx, why should be license software for 16 users. > >Of course, we could just throw this problem back on the third-party >software manufacturer and let them control and license _their_ software >for a certain number of users. (A number of vendors do it this way, which >to me makes more sense). > >What do others say? If a vendor simply asks what our HP-UX user-license >is, do we keep quiet about the actual number of users logging in?? > Tell them what they ask. If seen software (Vermont Views) that has different prices for various models of 300's. For instance: 9000/330 $2995 9000/340,350,360 $4395 9000/370 $5995 If I was buying these for single user workstations, you can bet I'd tell them that I have 330's. We also had an interesting case with Oracle once. We asked them what they considered a user. They told us a single person typing SQL at a terminal. They said that programs didn't count. So we had a lot more people accessing Oracle through a network server that I wrote. >+-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ >| Hershel Belkin hp9000/825(HP-UX)| UUCP: teecs!belkin | >| Test Equipment Engineering Computing Services |Phone: 416 249-1231 x2647| >| Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | FAX: 416 246-2016 | >+-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ -- Ian Hogg email: rathe!ian@cs.umn.edu ...!umn-cs!rathe!ian Rathe, Inc ianhogg@cs.umn.edu 366 Jackson Street phone: (612) 225-1401