lenny@icus.islp.ny.us (Lenny Tropiano) (10/02/88)
The company I work for, American LP Systems, Inc. is in the process of
signing a contract for a company who is going to need 24 terminals
to run our in-house developed software package. I don't think there is
a "cut-and-dry" method for spec'ing out any system. The big
problems that always arise are they price versus performance issues.
We want to keep costs down but not sacrifice performance.
Currently the system is being spec'd out for a 6386E (floor standing model),
24Mb RAM, 600Mb (2-300Mb hard drives) disk space, 125Mb streaming tape (or
if something is larger [possible SCSI?]), 24 AT&T 605 Terminals, 3 IPC-802
(10 port) boards, 3 or 4 printers, 2 Telebit Trailblazer modems.
The big question is will we be overloading the processor. There will be
enough memory (that probably won't be a issue). The primary reasoning
in choosing the 6386E over something like an AT&T 3B2/500 or /600 is
price. Another key issue is that our clients want to use their MSDOS
applications, where the 3B2 line cannot support these. Does the 3B2
handle I/O bound processes better than the 6386E WGS? Our programs
are mainly I/O bound, and do little CPU computation (no heavy mathematic
calculations).
Would we be better off with the 3B2 line (which model would be appropriate)?
Would we need the VCACHE memory for speed? Should we just use the
"PC INTERFACE" package to allow "floppy-only" PC6300's to access the 3B2's
hard drive (for their users that must use MSDOS)?
Please E-Mail any responses, and I'll summarize in two weeks..
Thanks,
Lenny
--
Lenny Tropiano ICUS Software Systems [work] +1 (516) 582-5525
lenny@icus.islp.ny.us Telex; 154232428 ICUS [home] +1 (516) 968-8576
{talcott,boulder,hombre,pacbell,sbcs}!icus!lenny attmail!icus!lenny
ICUS Software Systems -- PO Box 1; Islip Terrace, NY 11752rcj@moss.ATT.COM (10/03/88)
In article <513@icus.islp.ny.us> lenny@icus.islp.ny.us (Lenny Tropiano) writes: }applications, where the 3B2 line cannot support these. Does the 3B2 }handle I/O bound processes better than the 6386E WGS? Our programs }are mainly I/O bound, and do little CPU computation (no heavy mathematic }calculations). I have often and violently expressed my distaste at AT&T's marketing types for trying to market the 6386 as a many-user machine, but I must admit that if your applications are indeed I/O bound you probably cannot get a much better bang for the buck than the 6386E for your application. It has the horsepower (CPU) to handle what you want, and I have found it's I/O and cacheing (sp?) to be more than fast and adequate. I highly recommend it over the 3B2 of any flavor, and I think you will find the Unix that comes with it (I *hope* you're buying AT&T SVR3.1 or SVR3.2!) to be a breath of fresh air if you have ever worked with a 3B1 or 3B2. I have also painlessly ported many tools from our Vaxen to the 6386E -- I would much rather work on my 6386E than on our Vax 8810. Curtis Jackson -- att!moss!rcj 201-386-6409 "The cardinal rule of skydiving and ripcords: When in doubt, whip it out!"