NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/arch/12024

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!bhamcs!axs
From: [e-mail] (Aaron Sloman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM AS/400 is the world's slowest.. (actually multiuser systems)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:31:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK
Lines: 76
Nntp-Posting-Host: emotsun

[e-mail] (Bernd Felsche) writes:

> Date: 1 Jan 93 10:25:54 GMT
> Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
>
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Beebe) writes:
> >> >Now I won't say I was happy with the performance on the 286, but the current
> >> >systems with moderately old 386es are adequate, and our 486 box screams.
>
> >> Maybe I *really* am dumber than a box of dirt, but why, in this day of
> >> networking, would anyone do team development on a single box when it would
> >> appear that team development on networked single-user boxes would be a lot
> >> more efficient?
>
> >Because team development on networked multiuser boxes is better than either.
>
    [stuff omitted]
>
> It's more efficient and practical, technologically and in
> terms of organizational topology to have multi-user boxes
> for sharable resources such as the non-computing business's
> main operational database (truly distributed databases are
> still (IMHO) research toys or vapourware) and a really fast
> compute engine.
>
> For small organizations with limited computing staff (yes,
> even none!), a multi-user box is often the way to go.
    [more omitted]
> Finally, let's not forget the ultimate reality check: Cost!
> There is no cheaper way to provide computing access to those
> with well-defined requirements, than a multi-user box with
> character-cell terminals on each desk. It's not pretty, but
> it's just as productive (some say more productive) than a
> graphics workstation for the majority of business users.

This discussion omits another option: instead of character-cell
terminals you can use X terminals connected to a powerful,
expandable, shared compute/file server. For many kinds of users this
combination provides most of the benefits of a workstation on each
user's desk but at a lower cost per user (including memory costs,
system management costs, etc.). (Obviously some kinds of users
should not be on a shared machine, or should not have their screens
driven over a network, e.g. when doing continuous high speed
bit-mapped graphics.)

There are now several computer science departments in universities
where this network architecture works very well. Of course, it is
very important that as usage grows you can increase the power of the
shared machine, either by replacing the processor or by increasing
the number of processors, if you have a decent symmetric
multiprocessor system.

Moreover, when there's a new step in technology it is generally
cheaper to upgrade a shared central server, from which everyone
immediately benefits, than to upgrade the workstation on every desk.
X terminal users will generally experience a central server upgrade
as comparable to replacing a desktop workstation with a more
powerful model, or giving them all more memory, etc.

People who suffered timeshared systems in the 70's often refuse to
believe any of this unless they have direct experience of the
benefits. (And people whose income depends on selling or looking
after workstations won't believe it even then....)

The strength of this argument is not undermined by the horrors of X:
at least it provides graphical interaction over a network.

Aaron
---
--
Aaron Sloman, School of Computer Science,
The University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, England
EMAIL   [e-mail]  OR [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]       Fax:   [phone]