shj@uunet.uu.net (Steve Jay) (12/21/89)
In article <3319@brazos.Rice.edu> yar@basser.cs.su.oz.au writes: >X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 8, Issue 208, message 10 of 19 > >I'd rather have 30 19" Xterminals >backing onto a couple of Mips R6000 based systems each with 256Mb of >memory than have 30 Sparcstations with each with the minimum 16Mb of >memory. It would sure make the management a lot easier, and it would >eliminate the factor of 30 involved in any upgrade. The economics and utility of workstations vs. server/terminals have obviously changed in the last couple of years. Sun's success has been largely based on the marketplace's preference for workstations. The new class of servers & Xterminals that have become available recently make the choice less clear. In the veiwpoint of a system administrator, the server/terminal model is certainly easier to manage. However, I think until the economics favor server/terminal installations by a very large margin (like 5 or 10 to one), workstations will continue to be the prefered model for many installations. The reason is autonomy: who's in charge? I have seen a lot of users who will put up with poorer performace, higher cost, and more hassles for themselves, just so they can retain control over their own computer system. I spent a long time working for a computer center at a large research university, and I was astounded by the level of anonmosity toward the computer center, regardless of the quality & cost of the services provided. I have talked to enough folks from other installations to know that this is almost universal...nobody loves the computer center. With a central facility, you just can't get away from the issues of how the central resource is divided among the users. The administrative hassles of dealing with a central facility are always considered much worse than the hassles of running your own machine. I think this is almost entirely an issue of who controls it. My own machine may be a mess, but it's MY mess, and it's none of your business. The desire for local/personal control is overwhelming. I've seen customers run programs for a week straight on their own PC's, rather than set up a 10 minute run on a central machine. I think this same desire was largely responsible for the tremendous success of the VAX class machines, which allowed local (departmental) control, and then the even larger success of PC's & workstations (personal control). So, I think that even when economics and functionality favor a server/terminal configuration, autonomous workstations (with networking to the rest of the world), will continue to win in the marketplace. Steve Jay Ultra Network Technologies Domain: shj@ultra.com 101 Dagget Drive Internet: ultra!shj@ames.arc.nasa.gov San Jose, CA 95134 uucp: ...ames!ultra!shj (408) 922-0100
yar@cluster.cs.su.OZ (Ray Loyzaga) (01/02/90)
In article <4038@brazos.Rice.edu> ames!ultra!shj@uunet.uu.net (Steve Jay) writes: > In the veiwpoint of a system administrator, the server/terminal model is > certainly easier to manage. However, I think until the economics favor > server/terminal installations by a very large margin (like 5 or 10 to > one), workstations will continue to be the prefered model for many > installations. The reason is autonomy: who's in charge? > > I have seen a lot of users who will put up with poorer performace, higher > cost, and more hassles for themselves, just so they can retain control > over their own computer system. I spent a long time working for a > computer center at a large research university, and I was astounded by the > level of anonmosity toward the computer center, regardless of the quality > & cost of the services provided. I have talked to enough folks from other > installations to know that this is almost universal...nobody loves the > computer center. With a central facility, you just can't get away from > the issues of how the central resource is divided among the users. The > administrative hassles of dealing with a central facility are always > considered much worse than the hassles of running your own machine. I > think this is almost entirely an issue of who controls it. My own machine > may be a mess, but it's MY mess, and it's none of your business. I am not talking about truning over control to another department or computer centre, i am talking about the simplicity of managing a departmental system, much like an 11/780 with many terminals and moving to a system of many diskless/dataless workstations and a few servers. The administrative costs go up alarmingly. I am all for people having autonomy over their own machines, if they want the responsibility of maintaining their machines and are capable of doing so, or don't care what their machine is set up like, they just want to use it as is. The problem that I am addressing is one where the machine users do not want the responsibility of their own machine administration, they want all the services available on a centralized system replicated on each workstation, they want the individual machines to give an environment that really "feels" like a single system. All filesystems are visible, backups/restores are done for them, printers and software systems are maintained by someone else. Over here the users want to work on their own area of reserach, some might consider that system hacking is fun, but most just want a well maintained computer environment to be provided. The others (mostly paostgrads) get to play with the system anyway, because we like to cooperate with each other. For our research users, a centralized computing resource and many windowing terminals, would be a a lot simpler to maintain than a set of workstations trying to look like a system. For our student users, a centralized system should be the only way to go.