Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/17/84; site piggy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!piggy!dlm
From: dlm@piggy.UUCP (Daryl Monge)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: MicroVAX II performance?
Message-ID: <343@piggy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-May-85 09:29:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: piggy.343
Posted: Thu May 23 09:29:15 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 23:59:53 EDT
References: <1886@cornell.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 29

I have been very impressed by the flood of incorrect information
in this group concerning the uVAX-II.

For example ( from DEC publications):

The RA81 average access time is 36ms.
The RM05 average access time is 38.3ms.
the RD53 average access time is 38.3ms.

This is slow?

Also, the performance benchmarks we have heard about from prerelease users
have involved real world applications.  I consider this to be much more
useful information than the amount of cache, etc.  I don't even care about
the cache if my application performs nearly equal to a 780.

Lastly, several persons have already written in this newsgroup that the 
QBUS is 3.3 MBytes/sec (3 times faster than a 780 UNIBUS).  The CPU uses
6.6MBytes/sec on a special memory bus and the memory is a 10MByte/sec
system.  6.6+3.3<10.
If your UNIX or VMS system can generate 3.3MBytes/sec on data traffic on
the bus, I sure would like to hear about it!


Daryl Monge
AT&T Bell Labs
Holmdel, NJ

..!ihnp4!piggy!dlm