HP3000-L Archives

February 1998, Week 3

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:
Neil Harvey <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Neil Harvey <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 04:15:23 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
We support our applications on five 9x9 boxes (979/200, 969/200,
959/400, 959/200, 939) and we have not experienced a CPU failure - yet.

Our problems are generally dat or disk failures, and once, a memory
problem immediately after delivery that went away after re-seating the
SIMMs (not surprising considering the rough handling during
transportation).

Once, long ago, a series 58 (desk shape) was dropped during delivery,
and this gave many problems until the backplane was replaced.

Neil Harvey





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Alexander [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 12:21 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      9X9 processors
>
> There has been some unsettling "conversation" recently on this list
> about
> processors in 9X9 boxes. We've worked with 3000s for over 15 years,
> starting with a series III, but never one of the SMP boxes. We
> currently
> plan to consolidate several 9X7 boxes onto a single multi-processor
> box,
> probably 969-400 or 979-400. In over 15 years and 8 different systems,
> we have never had a processor fail. I would really like to hear from
> others who are using 9X9 or 99X multiprocessor boxes, as to the extent
> of this problem. TIA
>
> Joe Alexander   Systems Manager
> Biowhittaker, Inc.  Walkersville MD
> [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2