friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (09/23/89)
Hi folks,
This appeared in Computer Systems News (18-Sep-89, p2),
and part of it is reproduced here with permission only from
my mom.
#-------------------------------------------------------
"AT&T Turns to Pyramid" - Basking Ridge, NJ
AT&T is close to signing an OEM agreement with Pyramid
Technology Corp. under which AT&T will offer Pyramid
computers as high-end lures to attract IBM minicomputer
users.
For Pyramid, the deal would fit neatly into its strategy of
expanding its business by selling its MIServer line of
minicomputers and superminis through other vendors.
The Pyramid system, which will carry an AT&T logo, is
expected to replace the model 4000 in AT&T's 3B2 [sic]
minicomputer line. [it's really the 3B4000].
An AT&T spokesman said he was unaware of a pending OEM deal
with Pyramid, Mountain View, Calif. and Pyramid did not
return calls by press time. Pyramid has told analysists it
expects to soon sign an OEM agreement with a major computer
company.
[much more deleted]
#-------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a marketing type, but this looks like a positive
development. We looked into a 3B4000 some time ago and got the
pretty clear impression that they weren't doing so well, so maybe
this was in fact the case.
A question I have is whether they will do their own raw port
of UNIX to it or rely on Pyramid's. Certainly the latter is the
more expedient, but it opens them up to the same kind of
nonportability problems they had with the UNIX PC where the
operating systems aren't the same all around.
Any comments?
Steve
Disclaimer: I don't work/speak for V-Systems, they don't know
I'm posting this, etc.
--
Stephen J. Friedl / V-Systems, Inc. / Santa Ana, CA / +1 714 545 6442
3B2-kind-of-guy / {attmail uunet}!vsi!{bang!}friedl / friedl@vsi.com
"This posting is a word to the wise, but you can read it too" - melyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg) (09/27/89)
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > I'm not a marketing type, but this looks like a positive >development. We looked into a 3B4000 some time ago and got the >pretty clear impression that they weren't doing so well, so maybe >this was in fact the case. This is in fact the case. The 3b4000 is a great machine for milking accounting data out of a 5ESS, but as a general purpose UNIX timeshare system it's hopeless! (I speak from experience here. We have a 3b4000 sitting in the corner of the machine room. AT&T said it would support 300-400 users. The president of the University believed them :-) The machine has been in production as a tape server for several months now. Performance is terrible.) [ I asked Ken Thompson why Plan 9 wasn't running on any AT&T hardware, "such as the 3b4000." His answer answer was most amusing :-) ] > A question I have is whether they will do their own raw port >of UNIX to it or rely on Pyramid's. Certainly the latter is the >more expedient, but it opens them up to the same kind of >nonportability problems they had with the UNIX PC where the >operating systems aren't the same all around. What I want to know is if AT&T is going to bugger the hardware sufficiently such that a UNIX distribution from Pyramid won't run on it. What would be *really* nice would be if AT&T would become a Sun OEM. We have ~$1M that we have to spend on AT&T products (credit for the 3b4000 we're sending back :-) I'd much rather buy a bunch of RISC servers and SPARCstations, or a big Pyramid. Mind you, the 3b2/1000's that we *are* getting look pretty impressive. [ Betcha never thought you would catch *me* saying *anything* good about AT&T :-) ] Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,decwrl,lsuc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA "I think every man should have a wife. You can't blame everything on the government." -- Jed Clampett
gmb@occrsh.ATT.COM (Gary_M_Brammer) (09/27/89)
The reference to the AT&T 3B4000 as not a good time sharing system cannot be correctly stated without qualifying what has been done to tune the 3B4000. This machine straight out of the box will most likely be a poor performer in a general time share environment. It should not be referred to as a multi-processor machine, but loosely coupled multiple procesors or a tightly coupled network. We currently are using 3B4000's to run our production lines at the AT&T 3B/5ESS factory, and after correctly tuning the machines, we have experienced great results (100 users, 60000 TP1 type transactions per 8 hrs, and all processors > 60% idle). Every process executed on a 3B4000 should have some forethought about what I/O, memory resources, and CPU cycles are required (for example, vi should be marked to run on the processor associated with stdin and stdout). As far as dropping UNIX gurus' names, they are probably not the people that should be contacted for this type of question (ask them to write a book instead). The correct Bell Lab personnel to contact are located at Indian Hill BL in Naperville, IL. Gary Brammer Senior Engineer AT&T Oklahoma City Works