Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ptsfa!lll-lcc!styx!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!husc6!seismo!brl-adm!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: new Gould NPL
Message-ID: <706@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 1-Apr-87 10:38:10 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.706
Posted: Wed Apr  1 10:38:10 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 07:17:27 EST
References: <501@sw1e.UUCP> <1805@pyramid.UUCP>
Organization: Electronic Brain Research Lab
Lines: 31
Keywords: gould supermini

In article <1805@pyramid.UUCP>, csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:x> 
> Ummm, I'm sure that Arete, Encore, Pyramid, and Sequent would be happy to tell
> you about 12 MIPS superminicomputers with fast busses that sell for a lot less
> than $400K for a fully configured system. Elxsi and Convex too, I think.

Last time I checked (and I checked Pyrmaid recently) Arete, Pyramid, and
Elxsi were not 12 MIPs.  The bus on the new Gould is much faster than
every CPU you listed.  There are two big advantages of the Gould.  One,
it achieves it's speed using a small number of processors which makes
it more attractive to some of the number crunchers than it would seem to
someone who is just going to dump 100 users on the machine (which is where
the ENCORE really excels).  The other big point is the ability for some
really fast disk technology to be used.  Fast disks make UNIX sing.  For
example, the C compiler on most machines is limited by the disk speed.
Find the fastest disk you can, make it /tmp and watch the performance
change.

Still, both this offering from Gould, and the recent offerings from DEC
are very UNDERWELMING.  Gould's previous top of the line machine, the
PN9000, was pushing 10 mips as it was.  This new processor isn't a very
big jump for two or three years elapsed time.  It would seem to me that
we ought to be in the 20 mips range per processor now.  DEC is essentially
pedelling the same old computer, clustered up in a form which pretends
to be competing with the newer IBM processors.  The effect of this approach
has been seen in DEC processors over the years.  You end up paying close
to N times as much (where N is the number of processors) and receive less
than N times the performance increase.

If only the big IBM's weren't such a bitch to talk to...

-Ron