Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!sungod!davidsen
From: davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (ody)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: What differentiates a Workstation from a PC (Re: What should GNU run on (was Re: what kinds of things . . .))
Message-ID: <1718@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 16 Aug 89 18:00:54 GMT
References: <20519@adm.BRL.MIL> <36370@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <5665@ficc.uu.net> <1510@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> <1528@convex.UUCP> <1324@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric Corp. R&D, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 19

In article <1324@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> gaggy@jolnet.UUCP (Gregory Gulik) writes:

| Ok, speaking of comparing 386's to a Sun 2/160.  Just today I was
| comparing the load handling abilities of both.  Guess what.  I found
| that the Sun (who's dhrystone rating is 1/5th of the 386's) was able
| to handle a load almost as well as that "hot" 386...

  How did you compare? I don't say you're wrong, but we have a 386 with
4 serial users, 4 on optical connectors, and ? many more on ethernet. It
gives reasonable performance, which doesn't happen on a 2/160 with load
average higher than about 2.

  I'm sure you can find some 386 with low enough i/o bandwidth and/or
small enough memory to choke under load, but comparably equiped I don't
see that the 2/160 will get the job done. My first Sun was a 2/160 and I
have a 386 now, so I know which one handles my load better ;-)
	bill davidsen		(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM)
  {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me