Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:13778 comp.sys.apollo:2845 comp.unix.aux:1016 comp.unix.questions:14201 comp.sys.mac:33260 comp.sys.dec:1376 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!garcon!garcon.cso.uiuc.edu!grunwald From: grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu (Dirk Grunwald) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.apollo,comp.unix.aux,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.dec Subject: Re: Academic workstations -- Followups to comp.unix.questions ONLY Message-ID: Date: 11 Jun 89 02:18:24 GMT References: <507@lclark.UUCP> <32705@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <32727@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Sender: news@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu Reply-To: grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu Distribution: usa Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Lines: 25 In-reply-to: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU's message of 10 Jun 89 20:26:10 GMT oooo..cheeky cheeky The 3/260 is less than a two years old. At that time: + Wren IV had same bandwidth as Wren V, less density. + 741 was best controller available on the market, other than Rimfire, which didn't work with 4.0 Hardly a PDP/1. The point of the message was that disk aggregate bandwidth increases faster for smaller disks; central file servers devote high $$ resources to serving clients. The ability to incrementaly upgrade your system decreases (witness that we still have that 741) and your total performance is poor. For example, a 3/60 with a local CDC Wren-V runs small latex jobs about 10% to 20% faster than a 3/60 serviced by a an idle file-server on an idle network. And it'll do it for less money. -- Dirk Grunwald -- Univ. of Illinois (grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu)