UNIX Engine

[John Pipkins x257]

> /***** wdl1:net.unix / gatech!jfp /  6:49 am  Nov  7, 1985*/
> }I am looking for information on a UNIX engine that has 12 processors,
> 
     <etc.>

> What a waste of processors!  If you are looking for a 4 MIP unix
> machine you should consider the ELXSI machine.  It starts out in a 
> ONE processor config that runs 4 MIP and progress to a 10 CPU machine
> that runs at 40 MIPS!  (yes, a 100% gain for each proccessor).  The
> one cpu machine is upgradable a cpu at a time through 10.  As far as
> pricing goes, I can't recall details.  
> <...some stuff I deleted ....> 
> * I have no link to ELXSI, except as an interested bystander....
> 
>	 Sam Kimery

	There are several reason why I would chose a multiprocessor machine
(such as the Sequent Balance 8000 or the Flex/32).  The first and most important
to me is reliability.  A multiprocessor machine such as the Balance 8000 is 
redundant.  That translates to a greater uptime factor.  Second it encourages
parallel processing in the design phase of a project.  I mean, you can't use
the old  'there's only on processor arguement'.

Now for why I responded.  For most timesharing/development activities a multi-
processor system is better that a uniproccessor system.  This becomes more
apparent when you have a large (what ever that means) number of users doing
different things.  In a non master/slave system, processors will handle
jobs simultaneously rather than serially.

Second, the Elxsi 6400, while being a dream machine for me, is ECL (emitter-
coupler logic) based machine.  That means high power consumption and (in my
experience) higher rate of failure than TTL (transistor-transistor logic)
based machines. I speak from a positions of a person who did (last year) a
evaluation of machines to challenge our Vax 11/780s at a previous job.

				John Pipkins
				...trwrb!scgvaxd!felix!birtch!john