jbreeden@netcom.uucp (John Breeden) (07/21/90)
Does anyone know any details about AT&T's Starserver E? The lit I have says it's a true symmetrical, multiprocessor 33mhz 486 (4 processors). They claim a MIP rating of 106MIPS (yea!, I know. That's faster than a 3090!), and they are shipping it!
davidsen@antarctica.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) (07/23/90)
In article <12487@netcom.UUCP>, jbreeden@netcom.uucp (John Breeden) writes: |> Does anyone know any details about AT&T's Starserver E? The lit I have |> says it's a true symmetrical, multiprocessor 33mhz 486 (4 processors). |> They claim a MIP rating of 106MIPS (yea!, I know. That's faster than |> a 3090!), and they are shipping it! That sounds reasonable, given the numbers Corrolary was getting from a 4 CPU Z1000, and 4 CPU 4x486@25MHz. If you have a nice load of small jobs which eat the cpu and high load average, then you should benefit. If your load average is low (1 cpu hog) then this won't help much. As a guess, if vmstat shown more than one runnable process most of the time (not the same as load average) and/or the system cpu time is high, you will get a boost from the extra cpu's. I did some benchmarks (informal) for troff server use, using something like: soelim mytest.n | tbl | equ | troff -p | roff2ps > output.ps and the results were impressive. Note that I have five processes in the pipe to insure making the multicpu systems look good. The Corrolary really did! -- Bill Davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com, uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386users mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is it's own reward" -me
rubin@cbnewsl.att.com (Mike Rubin) (07/23/90)
In article <12487@netcom.UUCP> jbreeden@netcom.uucp (John Breeden) writes: >Does anyone know any details about AT&T's Starserver E? The lit I have >says it's a true symmetrical, multiprocessor 33mhz 486 (4 processors). >They claim a MIP rating of 106MIPS (yea!, I know. That's faster than >a 3090!), and they are shipping it! Neither the additional processor boards, nor an operating system to handle them, exist yet. The box does contain the inter-processor bus so you will be able to just plug in the extra processors. The 106-MIP rating is calculated, not observed. (It's my opinion that AT&T public relations is being less than clear on these points.) What you can buy today is the 1 processor configuration, which is a full-out 33 MHz 486 with Weitek 4167 math coprocessor and DPT EISA-bus SCSI disk controller. Production is still quite limited due to the scarcity of 33 MHz 486's. I wouldn't doubt the 26 MIPS single-processor figure; it really does scream. SCSI performance is in line with other DPT controllers (not in line with a 3090 :-), more and faster disks might help. Unix (SVR4.0) runs on the machine but the Unix C compiler does not yet support the Weitek. The parallel operating system is being jointly developed with Pyramid and bears some resemblance to what you see on current Pyramid machines (except that it's SVR4.0 based instead of BSD). The "true symmetrical multiprocessor" stuff means that (unlike e.g. the dual-processor Compaq) all processors will be able to run kernel code and do I/O. --Mike Rubin <mike@attunix.att.com, leaving soon for heaven.knows.where> [Disclaimer: So far as I know everything stated here is public knowledge.]
aland@infmx.UUCP (Colonel Panic) (07/24/90)
In article <12487@netcom.UUCP> jbreeden@netcom.uucp (John Breeden) writes: >Does anyone know any details about AT&T's Starserver E? The lit I have >says it's a true symmetrical, multiprocessor 33mhz 486 (4 processors). >They claim a MIP rating of 106MIPS (yea!, I know. That's faster than >a 3090!), and they are shipping it! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to customers? really? I had been told that the multiprocessor 486s required SVR4.1 (and, the literature I have says this), and we can't even get SVR4.0 yet for our 6386s through conventional channels... Keep in mind that MIPS comparisons to mainframes are meaningless for at least two reasons. One, the 370 instruction set is MUCH larger than a 486's, so it can do more with each instruction (e.g. conversion from packed decimal to binary is ONE assembler instruction!) Two, they use distributed I/O, so the CPU doesn't have to worry about losing cycles to disk or terminal I/O. Mainframe vs. mini/micro religious war flames to /dev/null... -- Alan Denney @ Informix Software, Inc. "We're homeward bound aland@informix.com {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland ('tis a damn fine sound!) ----------------------------------------------- with a good ship, taut & free Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. We don't give a damn, If I am caught or killed, the secretary when we drink our rum will disavow any knowledge of my actions. with the girls of old Maui."
reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (07/24/90)
In article <12487@netcom.UUCP> jbreeden@netcom.uucp (John Breeden) writes: > >Does anyone know any details about AT&T's Starserver E? The lit I have >says it's a true symmetrical, multiprocessor 33mhz 486 (4 processors). >They claim a MIP rating of 106MIPS (yea!, I know. That's faster than >a 3090!), and they are shipping it! Then, in a followup, <1990Jul23.165921.28420@cbnewsl.att.com>, rubin@cbnewsl.att.com (Mike Rubin) writes... > >I wouldn't doubt the 26 MIPS single-processor figure; it really does scream. >... >The 106-MIP rating is calculated, not observed. It seems hard for my tiny brain to fathom that the quad processor system runs *more than* 4 times faster than 4 individual processors (4x26=104 MIPS). If this is indeed true, we'll be seeing some interesting patents coming out of AT&T. jim =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital Equipment Corporation." James J. Reisert Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert 77 Reed Road Hudson, MA 01749-2895
jgy@cbnewsh.att.com (john.g.young) (07/24/90)
In article <13765@shlump.nac.dec.com>, reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: > In article <12487@netcom.UUCP> jbreeden@netcom.uucp (John Breeden) writes: > > > >Does anyone know any details about AT&T's Starserver E? The lit I have > >says it's a true symmetrical, multiprocessor 33mhz 486 (4 processors). > >They claim a MIP rating of 106MIPS (yea!, I know. That's faster than > >a 3090!), and they are shipping it! > > Then, in a followup, <1990Jul23.165921.28420@cbnewsl.att.com>, > rubin@cbnewsl.att.com (Mike Rubin) writes... > > > >I wouldn't doubt the 26 MIPS single-processor figure; it really does scream. > >... > >The 106-MIP rating is calculated, not observed. > > It seems hard for my tiny brain to fathom that the quad processor system > runs *more than* 4 times faster than 4 individual processors (4x26=104 > MIPS). If this is indeed true, we'll be seeing some interesting patents > coming out of AT&T. > > jim > The glossy that I have states 26.5 MIPS in the uni-processor configuration. *4 = 106 MIPS. As Mike stated thats calculated (some might say simply!).
petey@umbc5.umbc.edu (Jack P. Axaopoulos; (C)) (07/25/90)
>The single processor is rated at 26.5 MIPS (not 26).
486's run at 26.5 mips??? Really??? I thought the fastest was around
12 or 13. How fast do they have those 486's going now?
And what are some of the price tags on these speed demons???
Also, how could one of these running SCO or Xenix stand up to the Next?
Dying of curiosity,
Peteyrubin@cbnewsl.att.com (Mike Rubin) (07/25/90)
In article <13765@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: > rubin@cbnewsl.att.com (Mike Rubin) writes... >> >>I wouldn't doubt the 26 MIPS single-processor figure; it really does scream. >>... >>The 106-MIP rating is calculated, not observed. > >It seems hard for my tiny brain to fathom that the quad processor system >runs *more than* 4 times faster than 4 individual processors (4x26=104 >MIPS). If this is indeed true, we'll be seeing some interesting patents >coming out of AT&T. Alright, I admit... the single processor figure was supposed to be *26.5* mips. AT&T has filed a patent on rounding-off of decimal places. :-) --Mike
jbreeden@netcom.UUCP (John Breeden) (07/25/90)
In article <13765@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: >It seems hard for my tiny brain to fathom that the quad processor system >runs *more than* 4 times faster than 4 individual processors (4x26=104 >MIPS). If this is indeed true, we'll be seeing some interesting patents >coming out of AT&T. > Ok, ok. It's REALLY 26.5 mips per proccessor (x 4 = 106). Oh yea, thanks for reminding me, AT&T DOES have some interesting patents around this box. -- John Robert Breeden, netcom!jbreeden@apple.com, apple!netcom!jbreeden, ATTMAIL:!jbreeden ------------------------------------------------------------------- "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from. If you don't like any of them, you just wait for next year's model."
jbreeden@netcom.UUCP (John Breeden) (07/25/90)
In article <3644@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> petey@umbc5.umbc.edu.UUCP writes: > >>The single processor is rated at 26.5 MIPS (not 26). > > >486's run at 26.5 mips??? Really??? I thought the fastest was around >12 or 13. How fast do they have those 486's going now? >And what are some of the price tags on these speed demons??? >Also, how could one of these running SCO or Xenix stand up to the Next? 33mhz 486s, 267Mb main bus speed, caching algorithoms, cache snooping, tightly coupled parallel (ie: true peer to peer) and more. AT&T has a set of white papers from Bell Labs on the box. If the specs are anything CLOSE to true (even given a 50% fluff rate), it would prob. blow away the Next (not to mention the IBM RIOS). And STILL boot Flight Simulator ! :-) -- John Robert Breeden, netcom!jbreeden@apple.com, apple!netcom!jbreeden, ATTMAIL:!jbreeden ------------------------------------------------------------------- "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from. If you don't like any of them, you just wait for next year's model."
hjespers@attcan.UUCP (Hans Jespersen) (07/26/90)
In article <13765@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: >It seems hard for my tiny brain to fathom that the quad processor system >runs *more than* 4 times faster than 4 individual processors (4x26=104 >MIPS). If this is indeed true, we'll be seeing some interesting patents >coming out of AT&T. Sorry to disappoint you but the single processor Starserver E is rated at 26.5 MIPS (4*26.5=106 MIPS), pretty simple eh? We will however be seeing many interesting patents coming out of AT&T ;-) -- Hans Jespersen {uunet|att}!attcan!hjespers AT&T Canada Inc. or hjespers@attcan.UUCP Toronto, Ontario