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