And to add to what Craig wrote:

If you have Glance or SOS, take a good look at your bottlenecks. If you 
are heavily IO bound and you don't/can't add more FW SCSI channels, you 
are probably not going to see that much of an increase.

Having a faster processor waiting on IO only means it can process what 
it gets faster, when it gets it....


Craig Lalley wrote:
> Wesley,
>
> It means you will see and overall performance increase of about 300%.
>
> IIRC the 959 has a 96mhz processor.  The 979 is a 180mhz processor.  So any one process should finish in half the time.  i.e. a job that takes 1 hour should finish in 30 minutes.
>
> Of course this all depends on whether you have enough memory and I/O access.
>
> I would hope that you would double or even quadruple the memory on the 979, up to 8GB.   As for I/O, the maximum effective I/O is 8 fw-scsi paths.
>
> -Craig
>
>
>
> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I'm doing an analysis to possibly upgrade our production 959KS/100 system to a 979KS/200 and I see the performance metric chart that tells me we go from a 4.6 to 14.6. Does anyone have or know where I can get a general idea what the increase represents? for instance, does each whole number (like 4.0 to 5.0) represent a general percentage increase in performance? I know it varies from one shop to another, so I'm just looking for a general guideline or personal experience like a job that used to take 10 hours to run now only takes 7 hours. The "personal experience" part of this may not even be appropriate, in that the upgrades may not be close to the metrics I am looking at.
> I know this may be a tough question to answer, but thought I'd at least give it a try. 
> TIA!
> Wesley Setree
>
>   

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