Article View: comp.sys.dec
Article #2328Re: 5820 performance ( IO )
From: Greg Pavlov
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 1990 07:18
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 1990 07:18
20 lines
1386 bytes
1386 bytes
In article <15458@cbmvax.commodore.com>, grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
>
> A cluster of DS5000's with with directly attached SCSI drives seems to
> offer a hell of a lot better price/performance than the DS5800, plus
> lower lower long term memory and disk expansion prices.
This statement (extracted from a much longer posting) is right on the
money - literally. We are currently doing just what it says: migrating
from a 5810 to a cluster of 4 5000's with SCSI drives, for exactly the
reasons given.
Our primary application is a mid-to-large database in INGRES (apx. 1GB
now and growing at a rate of apx. 10MB per week). One 5000 has replaced
the 5810 as a server. When we can keep INGRES from crashing (which has been
rare since version 6 arrived...), we see a rough 200-300% overall performance
improvement over the 5810.
greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2988@canisius.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!canisius!pavlovReferences:
<1990Oct29.151224.21573@mlb.semi.harris.com> <15458@cbmvax.commodore.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!canisius!pavlov From: pavlov@canisius.UUCP (Greg Pavlov) Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec,comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: 5820 performance ( IO ) Message-ID: <2988@canisius.UUCP> Date: 2 Nov 90 07:18:44 GMT References: <1990Oct29.151224.21573@mlb.semi.harris.com> <15458@cbmvax.commodore.com> Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo N.Y. 14208 Lines: 20