Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!adm!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Sorting
Message-ID: <13102:Nov2617:21:4790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 90 17:21:47 GMT
References: <11628@alice.att.com> <4373@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Organization: IR
Lines: 13

In article <4373@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
> However, the absolute *minimum* is obviously that each
> tape must be located, put in a drive, removed from the drive, and restored
> to its place.  Say 5--10 minutes of handling time.  We're talking about an
> absolute minimum of somewhere around 25 man-weeks of "operator" time just
> to read each record once.

Yes. In my analysis I assumed a reasonable number of operators to load
the tape farm at the right times. This was a significant fraction of
the $1000000 cost---after all, the real cost for one person is about
$100K a year.

---Dan