🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6655@apple.UUCP> phil@apple.UUCP (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>If SUN 3/260 can really only handle 10-12 diskless before sluggishness
>overwhelms, then isn't the true cost of those 10-12 diskless workstations
>= workstation_cost + 1/10 or 1/12 of 3/260 cost?
>
>And what if a hard disk is much less than 1/10 or 1/12 of a 3/260, and
>said hard disk allows 20-24 workstations per server?
>
>I am very interested in the performance and cost tradeoffs in this area
>and would like input - it will affect Apple A/UX development priorities.

You may be able to come up with an initially less expensive system that uses
diskful clients (i.e., workstations with their own disk drives for swap
and OS), but my impression is that the longterm cost will actually be higher,
as in:

	(1) increased system administration costs -- OS upgrades
	cost more to install, and backup procedures may be more complex.

	(2) more parts to break, more equipment to insure, maybe more
	desk space given up.

	(3) a server with large disk drives is still a likely necessity.

Often the bulk of the load on a server and the network these days is due
to swapping on the clients.  In the not-too-distant future, RAM should
be cheap enough that swapping will be a minor issue.  RAM caches will
be larger, too.  A Sun-3/50 has only 4 MB RAM, whereas 8+ MB clients
may be common place in less than a year.  I would discount somewhat
the current experiences with 4 MB clients.

My vote is for diskless.  I'll also volunteer to beta-test a 128 MB Mac!