RE: Using RISC as development, sending to CISC. Any problems forseen?

[Bob Crothers <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vernon,

You raise a good point that I should have brought out in my first 
post:

>> So long as a shop can stay within the design parameters of a server 
box<<

This is even more important with the server models than a normal 
AS/400.

I think many have purchased server models without considering the 
design parameters of the box.  A previous employer of mine purchased a 
50S for a production system (against my recommendations).  The machine 
screamed for the first 6 months.  Then they went on a hiring binge and 
went from 100 users to 200.  Interactive load went up (a lot).  CFINT1 
kicked in.  Machine rolled over and died.

The moral of the story: Server models are for server type tasks (HTTP, 
FTP, DNS, Client/Server apps, ODBC, etc)!. Or cheap compile engines. 
 If you run significant interactive, stay away from them.

And forget server models if you are a Synon shop.  Probably other case 
tools also.

And also be careful of the twinax limitations.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From:   Vernon Hamberg [SMTP:hambergv@goldengate.net]
Sent:   Wednesday, July 01, 1998 3:38 PM
To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject:        RE: Using RISC as development, sending to CISC.  Any problems 
forseen?

At 08:20 AM 7/1/1998 -0000, you wrote:
>Actually IMHO, One of the server models makes a great development 
box.
>
>What happens most on a development box?  Compiles.  In batch.  Which
>is where the server models scream.

-snip-

>We use a 40S for a development box and are very happy with it.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Crothers
>Cornerstone Communications, LLC
>www.faxserver401.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Vernon Hamberg [SMTP:hambergv@goldengate.net]
>Sent:  Tuesday, June 30, 1998 6:45 AM
>To:    MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>Cc:    bvstone@taylorcorp.com
>Subject:       Re: Using RISC as development, sending to CISC.  Any 
problems
>forseen?

-snip-

>I _would_ question using a server box like the 50S. You could get 
poor
>interactive performance. Admittedly it's supposed to be better now,
>but we
>got bit verrry badly with a 50S. If you can keep your interactive CPU 
>% <
>10%, you'll probably be OK.

Server boxes _can_ definitely be a lower cost solution for 
development.
They _can_ also be an unmitigated disaster. It all depends. In our 
case,
under normal, orthodox operating conditions, our interactive load 
simply
rose too high, too often, for a server box to work in our environment. 
I
think they still have the 7-session twinax limit. They're not intended 
to
have much interactive at all, and preferably none.

So long as a shop can stay within the design parameters of a server 
box,
it'll be fine. It simply did not work for us, trying to run 10-15
developers, help desk, etc., on a server box.

Cheers

Vernon Hamberg
Systems Software Programmer
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
400 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN  55401-2499
(612) 371-1111 x480


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to 
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: 
david@midrange.com
+---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---