kowalski@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Jeffrey Kowalski) (12/14/89)
Hi, FIRST: I've got a Firefox (vs3520) running Ultrix. It's supposed to be a fast graphics machine, but it seems slow running decwindows. When I run Xgb (the X server for this type of machine), I get an error saying that it can't find microcode /usr/lib/ucode/vs3520. It runs without it, but I have a feeling that it's running "dumb," i.e. it's not using the double buffer, super-slicko hardware. I've hunted everywhere and cant find the ucode. So, what's the scoop? NEXT: the 3520 is a 2 processor machine, but I can't tell. I mean, it sez that "processor b is started," but a ps gives no indication of parallelization, even at the processor level. On a Gould, a ps will tell you which cpu your job's on. So what gives? Does the machine run both cpus or not really. Please help. Running slowly, jeff please respond via email, since I don't read news often.
saus@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Mark Sausville) (12/14/89)
In article <35139@cornell.UUCP> kowalski@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Jeffrey Kowalski) writes:
Date: 14 Dec 89 01:01:52 GMT
Reply-To: kowalski@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Jeffrey Kowalski)
.
.
.
the 3520 is a 2 processor machine, but I can't tell. I mean,
it sez that "processor b is started," but a ps gives no indication of
parallelization, even at the processor level. On a Gould, a ps will
tell you which cpu your job's on. So what gives? Does the machine
run both cpus or not really.
Yes, I hear you. I have the same question regarding our VAX6320 running
Ultrix 3.1. While troubleshooting a problem, we ran without the second
CPU for a while. Guess what, nobody noticed. Deeply embarrassed the
people who spec'd the buy.
I have heard that there exists a piece of code called "the Scheduler Patch"
which is supposed to vastly improve the utilization of the second CPU
(at least on 6x20s and it is the same proc, right?).
The same source reports that this non-product is from Ultrix pre-sales,
wherever they might be. I was told by my source that my sales-expletive
("We just sell 'em!") could get it for me.
To make it even more bizarre, I've also heard that this thing is supposed
to be in the phantom maintenance release 3.2, of which no one else has
ever heard.
Anyone at DEC care to elaborate or dispell any of the possibly bogus
stuff I've heard.
Oh yeah, while we're at it, how about an upgrade path to the RISC family
for all this metal so we can run MACH?
Disappointed,
Mark.
Mark Sausville MIT Media Laboratory
Computer Systems Administrator Room E15-354
617-253-0325 20 Ames Street
saus@media-lab.media.mit.edu Cambridge, MA 02139alan@shodha.dec.com ( Alan's Home for Wayward Notes File.) (12/15/89)
In article <SAUS.89Dec14000337@media-lab.media.mit.edu>, saus@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Mark Sausville) writes: > In article <35139@cornell.UUCP> kowalski@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Jeffrey Kowalski) writes: > > Date: 14 Dec 89 01:01:52 GMT > Reply-To: kowalski@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Jeffrey Kowalski) > . > . > . > [ Is the 3520 a multi-processor or not? ] > > Yes, I hear you. I have the same question regarding our VAX6320 running > Ultrix 3.1. While troubleshooting a problem, we ran without the second > CPU for a while. Guess what, nobody noticed. Deeply embarrassed the > people who spec'd the buy. All of the ULTRIX multiprocessor support since V2.0 has been asymetric. Only one of the processors (the master) takes care of system calls while the other processor(s) only run user mode code. Any given "operation" will only run as fast as the fastest CPU. Where you get the benefit of the 2nd CPU is when you start doing two of them at the same time; if they don't do any (or many) system calls. You're right, ps(1) doesn't give any indication which CPU something is running on. The only distributed program that I know that even know how to display time in the different CPU modes for all the processors is iostat(1). There is a field in the proc structure that tells which processor a process is on. > > I have heard that there exists a piece of code called "the Scheduler Patch" > which is supposed to vastly improve the utilization of the second CPU > (at least on 6x20s and it is the same proc, right?). If you find out more please let me, as I've never heard of it either. Normal operation of my 8800 is a user's CPU bound process running 100% "nice mode" on the slave CPU and the master taking care of everybody else. > > The same source reports that this non-product is from Ultrix pre-sales, > wherever they might be. I was told by my source that my sales-expletive > ("We just sell 'em!") could get it for me. > Actually this is beginning to sound familiar. There is Software Services support group that contracts with customers to specialized drivers and enhancements. Your sales-person should be able to contact them. > To make it even more bizarre, I've also heard that this thing is supposed > to be in the phantom maintenance release 3.2, of which no one else has > ever heard. I've never heard of this phantom V3.2 either. > > Disappointed, > Mark. > > Mark Sausville MIT Media Laboratory -- Alan Rollow alan@nabeth.enet.dec.com