Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!info-vax
From: info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.info-vax
Subject: Re: 8600 performance?
Message-ID: <3231@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 21:32:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.3231
Posted: Mon Nov 12 21:32:55 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 06:38:16 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 21

From: medin@ucbarpa.BERKELEY (Milo Medin)


Yeah, I have been puzzled by the emphasis on UNIBUS stuff myself.
I asked a few DEC people about why they put an RA81, which is a 
fine drive, which is a 2MB/s device, on a .5-.8MB/s UNIBUS.
They said that those drives are part of the DSA and they want you
to use the CI bus and cluster them together, and that the CI
bus is 70 Mb/s and isnt unibus bound.  But then I pointed out that
their file server, a HSC50 is an 11-based product and has the unibus
in it as well, and the disks go thru an UDA50.  I asked what the
difference was where the unibus bottleneck was, that its still
a bottleneck.  They didnt know why, but they said they had a good
reason.  Sigh.  I really like the RA81, its a great idea,
but this unibus stuff is ridiculous.   Thats why I only use
Eagles and Emulex massbus controllers (SI makes them too).
Surely they arent planning a new line of PDP11 unibus
products...

					Milo