Sorry,


I made an type-error I/O performance is what I meaned to say.


Regards,

Jan Gerrit


Jan Gerrit Kootstra <[log in to unmask]> schreef in berichtnieuws
833g6i$hoq$1@news.worldonline.nl...
> 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
> >
>
>