Xref: utzoo comp.sys.dec:4397 comp.unix.ultrix:5165
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!canisius!pavlov
From: pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec,comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: 5820 performance ( IO )
Message-ID: <2988@canisius.UUCP>
Date: 2 Nov 90 07:18:44 GMT
References: <1990Oct29.151224.21573@mlb.semi.harris.com> <15458@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo N.Y. 14208
Lines: 20

In article <15458@cbmvax.commodore.com>, grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
> 
> A cluster of DS5000's with with directly attached SCSI drives seems to
> offer a hell of a lot better price/performance than the DS5800, plus
> lower lower long term memory and disk expansion prices.


  This statement (extracted from a much longer posting) is right on the
  money - literally.  We are currently doing just what it says: migrating
  from a 5810 to a cluster of 4 5000's with SCSI drives,  for exactly the
  reasons given.  

  Our primary application is a mid-to-large database in INGRES (apx. 1GB
  now and growing at a rate of apx. 10MB per week).  One 5000 has replaced 
  the 5810 as a server.  When we can keep INGRES from crashing (which has been
  rare since version 6 arrived...), we see a rough 200-300% overall performance
  improvement over the 5810.


    greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny