Your variance could also be because of the Numeric Co-Processor.  This
was an option on the 9x7 and may not be installed on every machine.

Rgds
Mel

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:04:34 -0500 (Central Daylight Time),
"HOFMEISTER,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hello Bob,
>
>Re: TCP Checksum performance
>
>Thanks for this feed back on the 937SX and 917LX.  I am a HP guy
>and should know this, but my true love is MPE networking (don't
>tell my wife) and with the huge number of CPU, DISK, PRINTERS,
>etc. that are found on the 3000 the numbers after a while they
>all just blur together, or it could just be my short term memory
>lost (me not the 3000).  Actually it must be the serious lack of
>memory in my 917LX that makes it so slow, it has always run like
>a dog for me... which is not a bad thing since I do a bunch of
>resource testing between fast and slow machines and when I need
>a slow destination machine I know where to look.
>
>I found the URL:
>
>  http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind9502B&L=hp3000-l&P=R7835
>
>           Perf.
>CPU        Rating
>917LX       10.0
>...
>937         10.0
>...
>967         20.0
>...
>
>I did not find a ranking for my 959/200.
>
>Thanks for the info, and as I warned YMWV - Your Mileage Will Vary.
>
>Regards,
>
>James Hofmeister
>Hewlett Packard
>Worldwide Technology Network Expert Center
>P.S. My Ideals are my own, not necessarily my employers.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob J. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 15:09
>To: HOFMEISTER,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1)
>Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] TCP Checksum performance
>
>
>James,
>  The measurements are interesting but FYI a 937SX is not a faster
>machine than a 917LX. The only differences between the 917, 927,
>937, 947, LX, RX, and SX are licensing and numbers of I/O slots and
>internal peripheral space with the required power supply(ies) to
>support the load. They all run at exactly the same processor speed. If
>you
>want verification check a service manual or ask a CE.
>  I'm going to turn my checksumming ON. From the info you provided it
>sure seems worth the tiny performance degradation.
>
>                     Thanx for the info.
>
>                     Bob J. -- Ideal Computer Services
>
>
>
>">
>> The finding is on my low end 917LX is that data-transfer performance
>> with TCP checksum enabled was significantly slower in the range of 7-8
>> percent slower, but the CPU impact was only in the range of 2-3 percent
>> higher overhead.
>>
>> My finding on my next fastest machine a 937SX is
>