Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!david
From: david@torsqnt.UUCP (David Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Subject: Re: obsolete Sequent software
Message-ID: <1442@torsqnt.UUCP>
Date: 9 Mar 91 12:21:47 GMT
References: <1439@torsqnt.UUCP> <1991Mar6.183236.13600@unislc.uucp>
Organization: Sequent Computers (Canada) Ltd., Toronto, CANADA
Lines: 38

dgb@unislc.uucp (Douglas Barrett) writes:

>how much would a Series 2k/700 cabnet, hdc, 1G disc, ~200MB,
>30X486 system cost?  Has anyone ever run your system with
>15 486 proc boards?

Lest everyone take this all too seriously, my point was that 
determining the usefulness of a computer system by adding up
the MIPage or (worse) taking the price and dividing by the
MIPage is just plain stupid.

Firstly:	No one has defined the MIP in any way that is useful.

Secondly:	MIPs measure CPU performance. If all you do is sit
		in cache and spin, it *may* be a useful measurement.
		If you operate with memory, disk, terminals et al,
		you need to determine *SYSTEM* performance, not just
		CPU performance.

Thirdly:	The SYSTEM performance measured *has* to be relevant
		to the work you want the machine to do. Measuring the
		Mflop rate of a machine for which you wish to do 
		commercial relational database work is ludicrous!
		None of the commercial RDBMS use floating point in
		a major way. Conversely, maximizing disk performance
		for ray tracing may not buy you as much as additional
		Mflop performance.

For more details on the issues of benchmarking, may I point everyone
to comp.benchmarks, and especially the notes from Eugene Miya.

-david-

-- 
David Haynes	Sequent Computer Systems (Canada) Ltd.	 david@torsqnt.UUCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I think the world is filled with mindless sheep constantly bleating
"MIIIIPPPPPSSSS, MMMMIIIIIPPPPPSSSS" until they are lead to slaughter.