X-no-Archive:yes
Richard asks "Would it be practical to do this as a shared source project"?
That's an interesting questions. It would certainly need interested parties
to jump on the bandwagon, Gavin's "reasonable number of clever programmers",
as well as some other resources. While Gavin mentioned Allegro giving CSY a
proposal for a preliminary investigation, is anyone willing to contribute
time and effort, because they believe in the TPC benchmarks as a worthwhile
thing to do? Or are they not worthwhile? Do you agree with Richard that
"This could be very interesting and potentially attractive to marketing the
e3000"?

I recall that some list members have mentioned reading TPC specs (and there
are at least three different benchmarks currently used). What can they tell
us about what would need to be done? And how can those things best be
accomplished?

As I understand things, for CSY to do this, that means that they would not
be doing something else. It would take them away from planned work,
enhancements to MPE. Would that cost be worth the benefits of having the
benchmark? Or would we be better off were this to be done as shared source?

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Gambrell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Performance ratings for the HP e3000

Gavin Scott wrote:
>
> The way to do TPC-C on a 3000 is to write a "3000 application" that
> implements TPC-C using native TurboImage calls and all the other good MPE
> programming features.  It would certainly not be a small amount of work,
but
> given a reasonable number of clever programmers, I think you could get
some
> very impressive numbers out of MPE/iX.

I agree. This could be very interesting and potentially attractive to
marketing the e3000.  Would it be practical to do this as a shared source
project with parts of the work farmed out, but a central design authority?
<snip>