Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpcea!wunder
From: wunder@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Walter Underwood)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP9000 S500 Support (Was: hp9000 ser. 500 hpux)
Message-ID: <920003@hpcea.CE.HP.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 88 17:51:03 GMT
References: <1654@mhres.mh.nl>
Organization: HP Software Dev Environments - Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 35

>>   ...                                       We don't even think an 800
>>series can compete with a 500 with 2 or 3 computers in terms of multi-user
>>capablility.
>
>I agree.  

Well, I've used both, and I disagree.  We replaced FOUR s500s with one
840, and everybody was happy.  Comnpile, link, and install of notes
went from 45 minutes to 9.5 minutes.  Interactive response was far
better.  The s500 was killed by a few uucicos, but we just don't
notice them on the 840.

Our s500 had two processors -- we did some tests, and decided that
more memory was more useful than the third processor.

The s800 has a faster filesystem and a faster CPU.  Everything that we
have tried on our 840 is much, much faster than it was on our s500.

I think I've heard about some pretty good trade-in programs for the
s500.  I'd look at those, if I were you.

>>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?

The "HP Precision Architecture Handbook" (part number 5954-9906) notes
that the architecture supports "multiprocessing for fault-tolerance or
increased performance."  It also specifies the cache-consistancy
requirements.  The multi-processor support is already designed in.

When will HP ship a multiprocessor 800?  Heck, I have no idea.  We
just announced a 14 MIPS workstation (the 835), so that should keep
the CPU hogs happy for a little while.  Wish I had one.

wunder