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 > > > >