Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!julian!deepthot!zaphod From: zaphod@deepthot.UUCP (millions of atoms of Lance) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: hp9000 ser. 500 hpux Keywords: multi-cpu Message-ID: <1098@deepthot.UUCP> Date: 14 Mar 88 13:26:33 GMT References: <987@maccs.UUCP> <4760006@hpfcls.HP.COM> <672@kuling.UUCP> Reply-To: zaphod@deepthot.UUCP Organization: UWO CS, London Canada Lines: 33 Posted: Mon Mar 14 08:26:33 1988 In article <672@kuling.UUCP> irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide) writes: > ... We don't even think an 800 >series can compete with a 500 with 2 or 3 computers in terms of multi-user >capablility. So the logical question here is: Why doesn't HP have a >multi-CPU 800? Was the experience with the 500 series so bad that HP has >given up that idea? I agree. Our main application of our 2 CPU 9000/550 is data collection, at 1am a schedular starts up that phones 50 PC's around North America and exchanges data with them. The only action between the two machines is the simultaneous of information (grouped together as a single file). To save time we have multiple modems, allowing concurrent sessions. when we went from one modem/session-at-a-time to two, we noticed a definite throughput increase (sessions acheived/ time period) . when we went from two to three, we did not not an improvement, but rather a decrease in thoughput as communication sessions began to time out while two CPU tried to do three i-o intensive operations. to acheive even better throughput, we are tacking in a third CPU. on applications such as ours (concurrent near-identical sessions), a multi CPU machine is a neccessity. -- humbly yours, Lance Bailey UWO, Dept. of Comp. Science | Robarts Research Institute Graduate Studies | Clinical Trials Resources Group London, Canada | PO Box 5015, 100 Perth Dr. N6A 5B7 | London, Canada, N6A 5K8 decvax!{utcs|utzoo|watmath}!deepthot!zaphod -or- zaphod@deepthot.uucp