Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!esatst!neil From: neil@yc.estec.nl (Neil Dixon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: hp9000 ser. 500 hpux Message-ID: <935@esatst.yc.estec.nl> Date: 17 Mar 88 08:45:47 GMT References: <987@maccs.UUCP> <4760006@hpfcls.HP.COM> <672@kuling.UUCP> Reply-To: neil@esatst.UUCP (Neil Dixon) Organization: ESTEC/YCV, Noordwijk, The Netherlands Lines: 86 In article <672@kuling.UUCP> irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide) writes: >-- somehow we have a feeling prices have gone up rather than down... > >Our new 350 is much faster but I doubt that it is a good replacement as >a central computer for our whole institute. 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? >-- Intrigued by this, I ran the MUSBUS benchmarks on our 520, which has 3 cpu's and *Mb of memory, and compared the results with our 825. Below are our figures for the work load test:- 520 825 1 Concurrent User Elapsed time 377.10 Elapsed time 370.67 CPU time 88.83 CPU time 12.60 4 Concurrent Users Elapsed time 397.10 Elapsed time 372.77 CPU time 461.53 CPU time 49.47 8 Concurrent Users Elapsed time 534.27 Elapsed time 383.43 CPU time 1013.87 CPU time 99.90 I think these results speak for themselves. -- Neil Dixon UUCP:...!mcvax!esatst!neil, BITNET: NDIXON@ESTEC Thermal Control & Life Support Division (YC) European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), Noordwijk, The Netherlands.