Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpfcso!hpfcdc!perry
From: perry@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Perry Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: SNAKE CLUSTER(?)
Message-ID: <5570608@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Apr 91 20:17:31 GMT
References: <1991Apr15.204425.8682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: HP Fort Collins, Co.
Lines: 40

>Well, now that the Snake is out of the bag...
>
>Would anyone care to comment on the diskless
>clusterability of the Snakes?

Clusters are in 8.05.  8.01, which was a limited release for software
vendors, doesn't have clusters.  We have a few test clusters up and
running in the Lab, one of them about four feet away from me.  (Can you
say "FAST" ?)  The goal is to ship 8.05 in systems being ordered today -
the ones with the 90 day lead time.  Needless to say, we're motivated.


>Example:  can 720 boot diskless off a 730?

No sweat.


>          can an 835 boot off of a 730?

The 700 lacks cache size to be an effective server.  The 800, on the
other hand, is built to be a multiuser (or server) machine - it has the
big cache, I/O throughput, etc.  So, the conventional wisdom here is
that the combination doesn't make sense.  (Except for the fact that the
700 blows the doors off the 800.  The right thing to do is make an 800
with the 700 chipset to get cache + I/O + Specs.)

Conventional wisdom has been wrong in the past.  If 835 clients on a 730
is a big deal for you, tell us why so we don't get laughed out of our
boss's office when we ask to do it.  800/700 clusters are not a
no-brainer because PA-RISC (CDFs) have been used in the past to mean
"800".  The 700 filesystem is different in several ways, which makes the
job more interesting.

>--------  john kemp            (  (  )_  internet - kemp@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu

Perry Scott
HP Ft Collins

Disclaimer:  "If HP paid me enough money to really know about release
	      schedules and feature sets, I wouldn't have time to read News."