jdc@naucse.cse.nau.edu (John Campbell) (03/14/91)
Help!
I'm trying to compile a table for use here at the University that
summarizes, to some extent, different computer platforms. I have
a little bit of information about machine performance--although
I've found getting something like SPECmarks on non-unix platforms
fairly difficult.
The "other" side of the issue is numbers of users a machine can
handle.
What I'd like, is to hear from other sites and try to get an
idea on the number of users actually using different machines
concurrently. In other words, what machines are you running
and what's an "average" number of users? I'm particularly
interested in any sites that run "large" (>5) numbers of users
on Workstations (we don't).
Here's a synopsis, by the way, of our site:
Computer Memory Disk #accts Avg # users (Mips) O.S.
IBM ES9000-210 128Mb 10000Mb 1020 200 (14?) MVS
VAX 6310 32Mb 1800Mb 630 30 (10?) VMS
IBM 9375 16Mb 1600Mb 470 40 ( 7?) CMS
MicroVax-3500 16Mb 1400Mb 110 10 ( 6?) Ultrix
MicroVax-II 11Mb 113Mb 160 10 ( 4?) Ultrix
Type of use:
IBM ES9000-210 mostly on-line transactions, production programming (cobol)
VAX 6310 academic research and instruction
IBM 9375 email (PROFS) and instruction
MVAX-3500 academic research and instruction
MVAX-II instruction
We have, as you might expect, other machines (DECStation 3100, Apollo
DN1000, IRIS 4D25G) but they are typically running with very few (<3)
users at a time. Where do most sites put most of their users? (And
why?) ((Is there any reason--providing unlimited licensing is available--
not to run lots of users on workstations?))
If there is any interest in this I'll summarize.
Thanks! John Campbell CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU
--
John Campbell jdc@naucse.cse.nau.edu
CAMPBELL@NAUVAX.bitnet
unix? Sure send me a dozen, all different colors.dmr2386@isc.rit.edu (D.M. Raynault ) (03/19/91)
Hi, I'm looking for some info on software and/or manuals for two different computers: 1. an HP teminal 2647F, this HP has a 51/4" 13272A disk drive, 2. an Motorola EXORciser II microsystem, with an 8" disk drive, printer, and EXORterm 155 terminal. I realize this is very old equipment but we have a bunch of Engineering students that have nothing better to do than tring to get these things working. Any and all info would be welcomed. David Raynault DMR2386@RITVAx
suitti@ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti) (03/20/91)
In article <3468@naucse.cse.nau.edu> jdc@naucse.cse.nau.edu (John Campbell) writes: >I'm trying to compile a table... >What I'd like, is to hear from other sites and try to get an >idea on the number of users actually using different machines >concurrently. In other words, what machines are you running >and what's an "average" number of users? I'm particularly >interested in any sites that run "large" (>5) numbers of users >on Workstations (we don't). At Purdue in '82 or '83, I recall VAX 780s with 45-50 users, instructional. They also had dual CPU VAX 780s, with 100-120 users, instructional. Response could be termed sluggish. In about '86, Purdue had an IBM 3083 (roughly 10 MIPS). I've no idea what the average user count was, but one time I noticed that a particular 40 CPU second job was completed in 40 seconds of real time, give or take a tenth of a second. Then I noted that there were 300 users logged in. Presumably, most of the users were editing - a task mainly handled by the block-mode terminals. It isn't EMACS, but I was starting to have some appreciation for xedit. Three years ago at Harvard, we ran uVAX IIs with 20-35 users each, instructional. Response was adequate, but not awesome. Computer Memory Disk #accts Avg # users (Mips) O.S. VAX 780 8Mb 1-2Gb 1200 45 1 4.2 BSD Dual 780 16Mb 1-2Gb >1000 100 2 4.2 BSD uVAX II 13Mb .9-1.5Gb 200 30 1 Ultrix 2.0 It depends quite a bit on what you are doing with the machine. In some environments, there are no users - just some application which trashes the machine. Two developers may bring a system to its knees. If the project is different, ten developers might not have any problems with user response. I've seen very good consistent user-response on multi-CPU machines, such as from Sequent & Multimax. With lots of CPUs, it looked like you could run huge numbers of users. I never saw that many. Stephen. suitti@ima.isc.com
soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper,Cary NC,9194813730,9193624635) (03/22/91)
From article <1991Mar20.155013.18691@ima.isc.com>, by suitti@ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti): > > I've seen very good consistent user-response on multi-CPU > machines, such as from Sequent & Multimax. With lots of CPUs, it > looked like you could run huge numbers of users. I never saw > that many. Multimax is the name of an Encore system. The model 320 I'm typing this on has 12 32332 cpus and has 168 users logged on at the moment; in the afternoon the number approaches 200. There are other systems within Encore that support 150-200 users and this does not count an unknown number of "invisible" xterm sessions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Soper (soper@encore.com) +1 919 481 3730 Encore Computer Corp, 901 Kildaire Farm Rd, bldg D, Cary, NC 27511 USA
evil@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Nye Evil) (03/23/91)
In article <14374@encore.Encore.COM> soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper,Cary NC,9194813730,9193624635) writes: >From article <1991Mar20.155013.18691@ima.isc.com>, by suitti@ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti): >> >> I've seen very good consistent user-response on multi-CPU >> machines, such as from Sequent & Multimax. With lots of CPUs, it >> looked like you could run huge numbers of users. I never saw >> that many. > > Multimax is the name of an Encore system. The model 320 I'm >typing this on has 12 32332 cpus and has 168 users logged on at >the moment; in the afternoon the number approaches 200. There are >other systems within Encore that support 150-200 users and this >does not count an unknown number of "invisible" xterm sessions. > I recently got a chance to play on a Sequent with 20+ processors Lots of memory, etc..and I swear to gawd...it had *576* users with a load of .7!!!! Most of the users were Xterm clients doing general things but some of them were software types compiling etc. This was mid-afternoon usages. All you can say to that is WOW...IMHO... :) -=Dave Nye -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Dave Nye, a.k.a. -=TheEvilOne - evil@bbn.com The Second Evil Empire - - AMIGA..need I say more? }:) - evil@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dafuller@sequent.UUCP (David Fuller) (03/28/91)
In article <14374@encore.Encore.COM> soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper,Cary NC,9194813730,9193624635) writes: >From article <1991Mar20.155013.18691@ima.isc.com>, by suitti@ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti): >> >> I've seen very good consistent user-response on multi-CPU >> machines, such as from Sequent & Multimax. With lots of CPUs, it >> looked like you could run huge numbers of users. I never saw >> that many. > > Multimax is the name of an Encore system. The model 320 I'm >typing this on has 12 32332 cpus and has 168 users logged on at >the moment; in the afternoon the number approaches 200. There are >other systems within Encore that support 150-200 users and this >does not count an unknown number of "invisible" xterm sessions. The Sequent S2000/700 I'm on right now has 500+ users. I just completed a benchmark where we emulated 1260 simutaneous Ingres sessions with excellent response times. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Pete Soper (soper@encore.com) +1 919 481 3730 >Encore Computer Corp, 901 Kildaire Farm Rd, bldg D, Cary, NC 27511 USA -- Dave Fuller Sequent Computer Systems Think of this as the hyper-signature. (708) 318-0050 (humans) It means all things to all people. dafuller@sequent.com