Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!kailand!horizon!david
From: david@horizon.KAI.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Subject: Re: Sequent S81 running Dynix
Message-ID: <2400037@horizon>
Date: 9 Mar 89 16:39:00 GMT
References: <723@sactoh0.UUCP>
Lines: 32
Nf-ID: #R:sactoh0.UUCP:723:horizon:2400037:000:1346
Nf-From: horizon.KAI.COM!david    Mar  9 10:39:00 1989


Well, we don't have any S81's, but we do have an S27 with six 386's,
16M memory; as well as a B8 with six ns32k processors 12M memory.  Our
usual load on the S27 is a buch of editors, a few compiles (~4M
virtual memory), possibly a link or two (of a 12M program) and one or
two large (~12M) executables running. Response time is usually very
good. Even when we do a recompile (5 compiles at a time), response
time is still good.

Our system manager had an interesting answer to a survey he filled out
concerning running diagnostics on our Sequent machines. 

How often do you run diagnostics:
	a:  every week
	b:  every month
	c:  when there are problems
	d:  never
He answered c and d.

As far as I can remember, we've only had one hardware problem in the
three+ years we've had the Balance, and no problems yet with the
Symmetry. From what I've read in this news group, there are many
others with similar stories. After reading the story in the January
1989 Electronics about Sequent, it looks like they will be around for
a while.

Disclamer: I wish I worked for Sequent. 8^)

David Nelson               UUCP:      ...!uunet!uiucuxc!kailand!dnelson
Kuck and Associates, Inc.  Internet:  dnelson@kai.com 
1906 Fox Drive             Arpanet:   dnelson%kai.com@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Champaign, Ill. 61820      Optimizing software for supercomputers