[fa.info-vax] 2 785's or 1 8600.

info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA (02/06/85)

From: Mark Weiser <mark@tove>

We are faced with a decision.  2 785's cost about as much as 1 8600,
and are of approximately equivalent power (or slightly less).  What
should we buy?

On the 785 side are redundancy in case of failure, established
technology, existing Unix, and quick delivery (standalone 8600's are
probably a year away).  On the 8600 side are no overhead of load
segregation, latest technology, and perhaps a little better
performance.  (We are pretty convinced to stick with DEC because of the
ease of maintaining all our machines on the network.)

Are other people facing this?  What have you decided?
------------------
Spoken: Mark Weiser 	ARPA:	mark@maryland	Phone: +1-301-454-7817
CSNet:	mark@umcp-cs 	UUCP:	{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA (02/07/85)

From: Richard Garland <OC.GARLAND%CU20B@COLUMBIA.ARPA>

One factor of vital importance to us in hoping to move to an 8600 is
the cost of maintenance (from DEC).   It would seem the 8600 monthly
maintenance fee is about equal to 1 785  or half the cost of 2 785's
(perhaps not true with shared peripherals).  This is a big-big savings.
Even if you do self-maintenance I believe DEC's maintenance cost bears
a relationship to the actual cost of maintenance (done by anyone) so
(at least DEC estimates) the 8600 should be a winner.
					Rg
-------

info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA (02/09/85)

From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA>

I'd vote to go with the bigger machine.  It's easy to split up an
8600 amoung many users, but more difficult to try to aggregate the
two 785s together to solve a larger one.  VAXCluster is a joke.
Perhaps it might we worth trying to pull the PURDUE trick.  Thats
closely coupled enough to solve our problems..'

-Ron