On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:16:12 -0600 (Central Standard Time), Ed Archer
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, a while back, someone posted
>performance comparisons between various 3000 MPE
>systems and 9000 HPUX systems.
>I am specifically interested in the relative
>performance comparison between the 9X9 MPE servers,
>and the N and L Class HPUX servers.
>Any help will be appreciated.


Since there are no common "benchmarks" between the two platforms,
there is really no *meaningful* peformance comparison bewteen the two
platforms. By meaningful, I mean one which would help you predict with
a good level of confidence that the HP-UX system you bought would do
as much work as your MPE system.

Frankly, the hardware on the 9000 side is much more powerful than on
the 3000 side. Someone at HP decided to throttle the A- and N- class
MPE boxes to 1/3 of their real clock speeds seen in their 9000
counterparts. Further, the 9000 has a much higher "top end" (see:
Superdome) than the 3000s. Conversely, MPE seems to get more work done
with a given set of hardware resources than HP-UX does. There are many
variables here besides just CPU speed and I/O backplane.

If you are trying to size an HP-UX system to replace your 3000 system,
the only way to really do it is to rent a 9000, install your stuff on
it, and benchmark it. If it's too small, rent a bigger one and try
again.

Then let us know what you discovered. :)

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *