Michael,


Is that so, can I have a HP9000 with MPE? Some I performance would be
better. HP3000 is a piece of hardware, but a HP3000 is not a HP9000. Some
new fast buscontrollers are not available on HP3000, but are on HP9000
available.

The hardware does not match any more.

I agree that the operatingsystem is very efficent and reduces the 'lack' of
high performing buscontrollers.


Regards,


Jan Gerrit Kootstra




Michael Anderson <[log in to unmask]> schreef in berichtnieuws
F4B1826B1A21D211AEC5006008207AF40302DCD0@dogbert.csillc.com...
> Lets clarify something first. When you say HP3000, you mean HP hardware
> running
> MPE/iX. The same exact hardware running Unix is called an HPUX. So (HP
> hardware
> + MPE = HP3000 ) and (HP hardware + Unix = HPUX ).
>
> Now then, Not only does the MPE/iX OS run better, with less admin., and
> less
> technical knowledge required, than say Unix or NT. It's also a faster
> OnLine
> Transaction Processor, than Unix or NT. Much faster and rightfully so,
> MPE comes
> with a file system that knows all about record lengths, block length's,
> fixed or
> variable, binary or ascii. Also, native and exclusive to MPE is the
> World class
> DBMS, Turbo Image/SQL. By far the simplest, most reliable DBMS in the
> World
> today. Not only does Image perform better, requiring less hardware to do
> the
> same job as say ORACLE, or SYSBASE, but Image has very little admin. and
> technical knowledge requirements. While your DB admin. makes a full time
> job of
> ORACLE administrative duties, the same DB ADMIN. person will be finished
> with
> Turbo Image admin. duties before morning break.
>
> I heard about someone (I'll refer to as They) made some test comparisons
> of
> MPE/iX and HPUX, on the same exacted hardware. By first loading Unix,
> and then
> ORACLE for HPUX, and a test app. The test app was setup to do massive
> batch
> updates for a fixed duration of time. I don't recall the exact numbers,
> but the
> HPUX did approx. 300 to 400 TPS. Next they loaded MPE/iX (I think this
> was in
> the 5.0 days) on the same exact machine, and then ORACLE for MPE, and
> the same
> test app. They said the MPE box blow the 4 digit counter, counting TPS.
> They had
> satisfied their curiosity, and made no further tests. I would like to
> know WHO
> really did this test, if anyone, and what the exact numbers were. Not
> only would
> this add to Mark Ranft' ammunition, but mine and probably others as
> well.  I
> also wonder how much faster it would of been using Turbo Image instead
> of
> ORACLE, kind of a three tiered comparison. If "THEY" remain unknown, is
> their
> anyone on the list that can do this sort of test, and report back to the
> list
> all the numbers.
>
> My current employer has just replaced one of our HP3000 with a Data
> General Unix
> machine, to do Online Transaction processing. I was consulted about it,
> but
> being the new guy on the job, my recommendations didn't go far enough.
> The Unix
> does OK, I mean Not bad, but we all know that Unix doesn't have a clue
> what a
> transactions is, or a record length. At least not at the OS level. OTOH,
> Unix is
> great (More so than MPE) with byte streams. Back in 97 I setup an HP3000
> with
> Samba, used it as a PC file sever, it worked OK, I mean NOT bad, but MPE
> seemed
>  to handles each record in the byte stream file with the same overhead
> as it
> would for any other transaction. The Unix OS does the byte stream file
> server
> job much faster than MPE. However, when your looking for OLTP, mission
> critical,
> and if downtime is absolutely not allowed, and if you want better, more
> reliable
> performance, and you want to spend less money then your competitors,
> then
> without a doubt, the HP3000 is what you need.
>
> Mark Ranft wrote:
>
> > Hi 3K Fans,
> >
> > I have a new project.  I am having a lot of fun doing this, and I
decided to
> > let you join in on the fun.
> >
> > I have been asked to write a paper to help defend a client keeping their
HP
> > 3000.  One of my client's clients is seeking an answer to that really
stupid
> > question:  Why do you keep running on the HP 3000 platform?
> >
> > I am looking for:
> >         Proof of HP's Continued commitment to MPE,
> >         names of large companies that still use HP 3000's,
> >         and any other ammunition we can find.
> >
> > As I said, I am already enjoying this project.  (can you imagine
actually
> > getting paid to defend something you love.)
> >
> > Mark Ranft
> > CEO, Consultant
> > Pro 3K
> > www.Pro3K.com
> > [log in to unmask]
> > (612) 701-8182
>