Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!sybase!phobos!forrest
From: forrest@phobos.sybase.com (Jon Forrest)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Client/Server processes and implementations
Keywords: Client Server Processes
Message-ID: <7114@sybase.sybase.com>
Date: 17 Nov 89 16:37:09 GMT
References: <6895@sybase.sybase.com> <2184@kodak.UUCP> <375@xyzzy.UUCP>
Sender: news@sybase.sybase.com
Reply-To: forrest@phobos.UUCP (Jon Forrest)
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Lines: 26

In article <375@xyzzy.UUCP> harrism@aquila.DG.COM (Mike Harris) writes:
>Although the Sybase approach does have it's merits, there are several problems 
>with it:
>
>1) A single server architecture cannot take DIRECT advantage of multiprocessor
>hardware. [Other comments edited out...]

	No comment. Wait and see what our MP product does when it is released.

>2) A single server process may not be able to compete successfully for cpu 
>resources in a cpu bound environment. [Other comments edited out ...]

	This is probably true but a server of any kind, single process
	or multi process, that runs in a cpu bound environment is not
	running in an environment in which a server should be run.
	Servers are meant to be run on machines with as little else
	going on as possible. This is one of the rudements of a
	client/server architecture.

----
Anything you read here is my opinion and in no way represents Sybase, Inc.

Jon Forrest WB6EDM
forrest@sybase.com
{pacbell,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!forrest
415-596-3422