HP3000-L Archives

May 2000, Week 2

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:
Bill Lancaster <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Bill Lancaster <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 12 May 2000 11:26:01 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Jim,

No gotchas, per se.  You've got the 3rd party stuff handled.  Two things to
keep in mind:

   1.  Two processors doesn't mean twice the processing power.  Going from
a 979-100 to a -200 will mean about 70 percent additional performance.

   2.  Two processors doesn't mean that batch processing will automatically
take half the time.  You'll need to introduce greater parallelism into your
processing manually (or with your batch scheduler) to take fullest
advantage of the additional processor.

HTH,

Bill Lancaster
Lancaster Consulting

At 12:40 PM 5/12/00, Jim Marshall wrote:
>Any gotchas on adding the 2nd processor?  I've got the info from our 3rd
>party vendors pertaining to their software handled.
>
>Jim Marshall
>D.P. Operations
>Steel Warehouse Company
>(219) 236-5104
>[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2