HP3000-L Archives

September 1995, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
leon degeling <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
leon degeling <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 22 Sep 1995 21:08:32 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
In article <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask]  says...
>
>We have a 960 with 256MB of memory.  7FL drives and 5 SCSI drives over
2
>controllers.  We went to 5.0 push with all the patches about 1-2 months
>ago.  Since then the 'perceived' performance on the system is slower.
>Has any one else seen this on their system?
>
>Roger Smith
 
Roger,
 
I'm working on a 987 and a 937 and they are both definetly slower.
exspecially when there a big proces running (restore or something) in
the Ds or ES q the other processes in the Cs q don't get their CPU
fast.
I have been in long discussions with HP about this, and they claim
this is a memory problem. So we had another 32 mb installed and
guess what. Nothing changed.
A strange thing is that glance reports that there's plenty of CPU left,
when performance is real bad,,,
 
HP is still looking in to it....

ATOM RSS1 RSS2