Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplcomm!uunet!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!omahony
From: omahony@swift.cs.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Wasteful use of file-servers
Message-ID: <1991Jun17.145457.7964@swift.cs.tcd.ie>
Date: 17 Jun 91 14:54:56 GMT
References: <1991Jun11.175144.24736@cfctech.cfc.com> <PCG.91Jun14183441@aberdb.aber.ac.uk>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 17

In article <PCG.91Jun14183441@aberdb.aber.ac.uk>, pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
> Using a high speed machine with
> high speed disks is wasted as a file server; in practice file service is
> neither CPU bound nor IO bound, but network bound.
and 
> Having a server than can provide an aggregate thruput of more
> than 1MB/sec. is entirely pointless, and any modern (16Mhz) 286 AT with
> some decent ESDI or SCSI disk controller and a couple of disks will do.
> 

The argument above makes perfect sense technically, but is in complete
conflict with current practice.  Normally, small networks are built with
a number of medium or low-powered client machines, and a fast server machine.

Does anyone have a counter-argument?

Does the ESDI or other fast-bus make much of a difference e.g. 10%, 20%, 50%?