roark@wlw.dec.com (Tim, Sales Support @CYO DTN 432.7539 WLW:: or CSOA1::) (09/30/88)
Response from Larry White of the PCSG group at DEC Subj: PCSA AT BIRMINGHAM regarding >Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.os.vms,comp.sys.dec >Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!sbmsg1!scbhq!bschp!howton >Subject: DECnet, VMS services for MS-DOS >Posted: 27 Sep 88 01:37:06 GMT >Organization: Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL >Xref: decwrl comp.dcom.lans:2092 comp.os.vms:9365 comp.sys.dec:947 >Posted: Mon Sep 26 21:37:06 1988 > > > I currently work with two MicroVaxes that are running VMS. We use these >two computers as file servers for our company's database, which bye the way is >Advanced Revelation!@#$&. Since we installed this network, we have had >very long delays with the processing of data. When the database is run off >of a standalone Compaq 286 PC, it takes about 3 to 4 minutes to process the >data and print a report. When loaded off the uVax, it takes at least 9 to 10 >minutes to run the report. DEC claims that the file service is supposed to >be faster than an AT's hard drive, however, we have found this not so at our >site. Has anyone else encountered this problem? If so, is there any way to >get any better performance out of a MicroVax? > > The above mentioned times for loading off the MicroVax was with only one >user. With several users, that time increases rapidly. Before this network >was installed, we had our PC's networked off a Televideo running Novell >software. It's a shame that the Televideo would give a lot better performance >than the Vax does, considering that the Televideo was a very slow machine >compared to the MicroVax. > > Thanks, > Jim H. > ======================================================================== Thanks for forwarding. Since Jim stated that he is using the file server, which is NOT "faster than an AT's hard drive". The virtual disk (LAD) can be, but not the file server. He did not mention what version of PCSA he is using. Version 2.0 offers about a 30% increase in "file server" performance over the previous version. If he is not using version 2.0 or 2.1, it would be a good idea to upgrade to that version. If the database could be used as read-only (with updates done at a specific time of day), it could be inplemented using the virtual disk. This would dramatically increase the performance. Hope that info helps. Can you forward this info to him? Regards, Larry ------------------------------------------------------------------------