Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!stan!jmoore
From: jmoore@stan.UUCP (Jim Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: brash micros versus the Big Iron: not yet
Message-ID: <145@stan.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Sep-87 11:58:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: stan.145
Posted: Thu Sep  3 11:58:12 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 20:55:59 EDT
References: <622@winchester.UUCP> <12953@amdahl.amdahl.com> <630@winchester.UUCP> <13439@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Organization: SAE Inc., Longmont, Colorado
Lines: 26
Summary: SUNs for timesharing

In article <13439@amdahl.amdahl.com>, mat@amdahl.amdahl.com (Mike Taylor) writes:
> In article <4949@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
> > Of course, as someone who deals with large timeshareing Unix boxes,
> > I'll be happy to tell you why a Sun 3/xx at 2 or 3 11/780 mips won't
> > replace a real 780..... 
> > 
> I think that would be an interesting discussion.  I, for one, would be
> interested in your views.  Perhaps you might kick things off....
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Taylor                        ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!mat

I have never seen any indication that SUN ever represented a Sun/3
as a 780 replacement or a timesharing machine at all. The only reason
that I can think of that would prohibit this use would be the 8 context
direct mapped MMU. The VMEbus can hold its own with a Massbus or
Unibus. The 3/260 can hold enough memory and has a hefty CPU compared
to a 780. Is the MMU a serious bottle to timesharing?

I think a discussion about the Sun/4 would be more appropriate as SUN
does seem to be pushing this machine as a server including timesharing
capabilities.

Jim Moore
SAE, Longmont Colorado