Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CIM-VAX.HONEYWELL.COM!derstad
From: derstad@CIM-VAX.HONEYWELL.COM ("DAVE ERSTAD")
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: The White Paper
Message-ID: <8912061643.AA12779@umix.cc.umich.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 89 16:26:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

>  >     Actually, Apollo NCS IS faster than the Suns.  I have the source,
>  >compiled NCS and NIDL on the Suns, and it WORKED first time.  NO bugs
>  >(unlike NFS for machine X).  Not only that, it took 3 Sun 4 file
>  >servers to equal the speed of 6 DN3000's for the Mandel demo.
>  
>  I'm not comparing hardware or distributed file systems, just RPC protocols.
>  I didn't now anyone used the file system part of NCS.  I thought even
>  Apollo used Sun's NFS.  Your last sentence seems to say that Sun's are
>  twice as fast as Apollos, so I'm sure you did not mean it :-)

I'm sure Joshua meant exactly what he said.  The DN3000 is (was) an
entry level machine.  The equivalent can be purchased today for 
under $5000.  The Sun 4 is a much bigger, more expensive machine.

Dave Erstad
Honeywell SSEC
DERSTAD@cim-vax.honeywell.com