Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcupt1!hpisod2!dhepner
From: dhepner@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dan Hepner)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Performance Data (was Re: Client/Server processes and implementations)
Message-ID: <13520004@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Date: 28 Nov 89 20:40:10 GMT
References: <7169@sybase.sybase.com>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 26

From: hargrove@harlie.sgi.com (Mark Hargrove)
>
>The client and server don't have to run on the same machine.  In fact,
>as Jon Forrest (correctly) points out, in the general case, you don't
>*want* them to run on the same machine.

How much this will buy you is directly dependent upon the distribution
of CPU cycle requirements between the clients and the server(s), and
the relative cost of remote vs local communication between the clients 
and the server.  

1. Is it your experience that more than 10% of the work is done by 
   the clients?

2. Is it your experience that remote communication costs don't end
   up chewing into the savings attained by moving the clients 
   somewhere else?

>(and in the extreme (and not at all impractical) case, you run each 
> client and each server on its own machine).  This model is simple, 
> elegant, and fundamentally right.

This would require basically a 50-50 split of the workload between
the client and server. A practical assumption? 
 
Dan Hepner


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com