Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!apple!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!bigtex!natinst!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!dover!turner
From: turner@dover.sps.mot.com (Robert Turner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Benchmarks for DN10000?
Summary: Some benchmark answers
Message-ID: <1589@dover.sps.mot.com>
Date: 17 Jul 89 16:23:46 GMT
References: <SULLIVAN.89Jul13161740@msor0.msor.exeter.ac.uk>
Organization: Motorola Inc., Sector CAD, Mesa, AZ
Lines: 16

In article <SULLIVAN.89Jul13161740@msor0.msor.exeter.ac.uk>, sullivan@msor.exeter.ac.uk (Rob Sullivan) writes:
> reliable set of benchmarks for the DN10000,

First there is no such animal as a "reliable set of benchmarks".  But to
answer your question, we have seen from 4 to 15 times faster wall clock
times than a DN4000.  Our DN10k is a multi-processor, four CPUs.
When running three jobs in parallel each job ran less than 10% longer
on wall clock time.  Note all programs and all data resided in the single
DN10K's disk.

Your real question should be what will be the easiest machine to use in
our Apollo environment.  The answer hands down is a DN10K.  For us, it
was a plug and play, and on the ring in a couple of days (due to newness
of SR10).

Robert