🚀 go-pugleaf

martinb@bottomdog.East.Sun.COM (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge/Gatwick) writes:


>In article <1991Mar01.163348.24172@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>,
>johnm@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (John Matzka) writes:

>[delete comments regarding fitness of Sequent s/w and followups]

>|> I would be interested to see you put 500+ simultaneous users on a
>dozen suns.

>I really couldn't resist this one: 500 users on a dozen Suns =
>500/12 Users per system =
>41.67 users per system.
>
>Let's call it 50 users per system to be fair :-)
>
>Each SS400 = 22 MIPS   =>   0.44 MIPS/user
>Say the Sequent had 30 processors rated at 5 MIPS each
>i.e. 30*5  = 150 MIPS  =>   0.3  MIPS/user
>
>So it look's like the dozen Suns would give you *more* power per user
>than a single Sequent.

But let's use current Sequent technology, 30 processors at
14 MIPS (486s in the Series 2000/700) 

This would give 30*14 = 420 MIPS => 0.84 MIPS/user

Seems to swing the balance again!

-david-

Anyone who measures the system performance using MIPS must be
the person P.T. Barnum was talking about.
-- 
David Haynes	Sequent Computer Systems (Canada) Ltd.	 david@torsqnt.UUCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next week we will be discussing the Canadian High Tech industry. We will be
visiting both companies and talking with all eight people involved. -- C.R.