Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!netsys!beartrk!clp
From: c...@beartrk.UUCP (Charlie Pilzer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Making 3B2/310 faster
Keywords: disks memory
Message-ID: <260@beartrk.UUCP>
Date: 18 Oct 88 02:54:44 GMT
Organization: Bear Track Computer Co., Silver Spring, MD.
Lines: 31
I have a client who is using a 3B2/310 for a relatively small (<10000 records)
database. There are some users who are complaining that the machine is too
slow and would like to enhance the performance. But they would like to do it
inexpensively if possible.
The current configuration is: 3B2/310, 2 Meg Memory, 72 MB disk, 2 Ports cards,
XM box with 23 MB tape drive. Software is Sys V, rel 2.1.
I've talked with some other users who suggested that A) more memory might help,
B) a second disk might help, C) changing to Sys V, rel 3 might help.
I'm open to any suggestions, but in particular I'm curious about the following:
1) The big culprit right now seems to be the disk. I was thinking that
if I added a second disk and dedicated it to the database could I get more
performance. What disks seem to give good performance? Would it make a lot
of difference?
2) Adding more memory can be expensive, because to go to 4 MB (the max) I wind
up with two 1 MB memory cards and no place to put them. Also the price of the
memory quoted to me was relatively high. Would adding memory make a significant
performance change? Where can I get less expensive memory boards?
3) Some of the software in use now is available in object only and as far as
I know has not been ported to Sys V, ver 3 yet. Can I take code that runs
under version 2 and just run it under version3? Is version 3 faster than
version 2? I did notice that changing from 2.0 (swapped) to 2.1 (paged) was
a noticable improvement.
Charlie Pilzer
Bear Track Computer Co. netsys!beartrk!clp 301-588-0326
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!abell
From: ab...@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (abell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Making 3B2/310 faster
Keywords: disks memory
Message-ID: <4744@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 19 Oct 88 20:06:12 GMT
References: <260@beartrk.UUCP>
Reply-To: ab...@polyslo.UUCP (Alan Bell)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 18
I hate to tell you this, but we have tried everything which you thought of
and came up with a machine with twice the disk capacity, twice the RAM
capacity and System V rel 3 to boot, but the machine was not any better, or
at least not for our needs, than it was prior to the upgrade. We were doing
essentially the same thing you were. We were teaching a course on Data Base
Management using ACCELL from UNIFY. I'm afraid that you're only hope would
be to upgrade to a faster machine as we found that it is the CPU which is
the bottle neck. You can verify this yourself by running the System Activity
reports (sar). It will help you determine what your bottle neck is. I believe
it is documented in the System Administration Utilities manual. Good Luck!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Alan Bell | For smart mailers (e.g. internet): |
| Cal Poly State Univ. | ab...@polyslo.calpoly.edu |
| San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 | For dumb mailers: |
| (805) 756-7185 | ...ucbvax!voder!polyslo!abell |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!
ames!ncar!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxf.cso.uiuc.edu!jkj737
From: jkj...@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Making 3B2/310 faster
Message-ID: <49800006@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 88 23:43:00 GMT
References: <260@beartrk.UUCP>
Lines: 63
Nf-ID: #R:beartrk.UUCP:260:uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:49800006:000:2695
Nf-From: uxf.cso.uiuc.edu!jkj737 Oct 19 18:43:00 1988
/* Written 9:54 pm Oct 17, 1988 by c...@beartrk.UUCP in uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.att */
/* ---------- "Making 3B2/310 faster" ---------- */
I have a client who is using a 3B2/310 for a relatively small (<10000 records)
database. There are some users who are complaining that the machine is too
slow and would like to enhance the performance. But they would like to do it
inexpensively if possible.
The current configuration is: 3B2/310, 2 Meg Memory, 72 MB disk, 2 Ports cards,
XM box with 23 MB tape drive. Software is Sys V, rel 2.1.
I've talked with some other users who suggested that A) more memory might help,
B) a second disk might help, C) changing to Sys V, rel 3 might help.
I'm open to any suggestions, but in particular I'm curious about the following:
/* End of text from uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.att */
The first thing I would do is set up the performance utilities that come with
Unix (sar(1m) and the like) and take a weeks worth of data under normal
load.
Take a look at disk activity, and memory swapping stats to see where
the bottleneck is.
If you have a LOT of disk activity and very little memory swapping, you
probably need a second disk to offload some of the work. Unix works best
with swap and / on one disk /usr on second. This minimizes head movement
and reduces the amount of time waiting for i/o (wio). It balances the disk
use more evenly between both drives.
If you have a LOT of memory swapping, you don't have enough memory so Unix is
constantly swapping memory out to disk which will hurt if you also are
doing a lot of disk activity as well. You probably should look at getting
more memory.
You should also look at performance verses number of users. The 310's
ports cards are dumb (almost) and cause more overhead than the new eports
we use on the 600. You could have too many users for a 310.
Release 3.1 does have nice features like demand paging and shared
libraries, but these come at a price. The overhead is slightly higher, so
depending of machine use it may or may not help. I have found that our 300
running 3.1 is a total dog. A 310 should fair a little better.
As my computer architecture professor said, "The only way to may a good
decision is to not make a stupid one." (ie. don't change ANYTHING until
you look are the system activity reports for the normal system load and
verify the bottlenecks.) Be sure to use all the options of SAR(1M) available.
#include<disclaimer.h>
Jeff Johnson
Global Information Systems Technology, Inc.
1800 Woodfield Drive
Savoy, IL 61874
UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!gistqa!jjohnson
ARPANET: jjohnson%gis...@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-or-
jkj737%...@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!netsys!len
From: l...@netsys.COM (Len Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Making 3B2/310 faster
Summary: Hogwash!
Keywords: disks memory
Message-ID: <10683@netsys.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 88 13:49:02 GMT
References: <260@beartrk.UUCP> <4744@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Reply-To: l...@netsys.COM (Len Rose)
Organization: Netsys,Inc.
Lines: 8
I can't believe you would say this.. With a maxed out configuration
the machine is very nice under a load.. You neglected to mention
how many users you were trying to support. If it was greater than 6,
running some sort of heavy duty application then you shouldn't have
been using a 310 anyway.
Tuning also can make quite a bit of difference. I am curious to find
out how many users you had on the machine..
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-tis!lll-winken!scooter!netsys!len
From: l...@netsys.COM (Len Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Making 3B2/310 faster
Keywords: disks memory
Message-ID: <10774@netsys.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 88 04:23:22 GMT
References: <260@beartrk.UUCP> <2838@mybest6.UUCP> <373@anumb.UUCP>
<9267@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: l...@netsys.COM (Len Rose)
Organization: Netsys,Inc.
Lines: 7
I think it's time for a migration kit from 3B2/400's to 3B2/500 or
something of that order? AT&T are you listening?
Len
Len Rose - Netsys,Inc.
l...@ames.arc.nasa.gov or l...@netsys.com
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!
tank!uwvax!rutgers!att!occrsh!rjd
From: r...@occrsh.ATT.COM (Randy_Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Making 3B2/310 faster
Summary: model 400 to model 500 upgrade not easy....
Keywords: disks memory
Message-ID: <405@occrsh.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 88 13:51:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: occrsh.405
References: <260@beartrk.UUCP> <2838@mybest6.UUCP> <373@anumb.UUCP>
<9267@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <10774@netsys.COM>
Reply-To: r...@occrsh.UUCP (Randy_Davis)
Organization: AT&T Network & Data Systems, OKC
Lines: 21
In article <10...@netsys.COM> l...@netsys.COM (Len Rose) writes:
>
> I think it's time for a migration kit from 3B2/400's to 3B2/500 or
> something of that order? [rest deleted - rjd]
>
> Len
An upgrade from a model 400 to a model 500 would require the replacement of
the motherboard (ED4C637 to 518A or 518B), power supply (different connectors,
higher power capacity, different power on/power off circuits), hard disk
(ST506 to ESDI), apparatus mounting (what the backplane is mounted to),
memory cards (191B, 191D, 192B, etc. to 523A, 523B, etc.), the SCSI Bridge
controller (the 400 doesn't have it), and assorted hardware such as the disk
mounting brackets, etc. In other words, almost everything. In fact, the only
common parts to the two units are the floppy drive, the outer chassis, the
battery, assorted small hardware parts, and any option cards starting with 195-.
Nice upgrade.... Be easier and probably cheaper to just buy the 500 and sell
the 400.
Randy Davis UUCP: ...(att!)ocrjd!randy
...(att!)occrsh!rjd
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
rutgers!netsys!len
From: l...@netsys.COM (Len Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Making 3B2/310 faster
Summary: ok..
Keywords: disks memory
Message-ID: <10792@netsys.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 88 21:36:45 GMT
References: <260@beartrk.UUCP> <2838@mybest6.UUCP> <373@anumb.UUCP>
<9267@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <10774@netsys.COM> <405@occrsh.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: l...@netsys.COM (Len Rose)
Organization: Netsys,Inc.
Lines: 6
That would be one hell of an upgrade,eh?
I was just thinking out loud I suppose.. Where can I trade in my
14 mhz 3B2/400? I want more mips!
Len