Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:42:05 +0200
|
On Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:23:45 -0400 Patricia Van Name
<[log in to unmask]> said:
>Any drawbacks, restrictions or additional requirements (e.g. bigger box
>required) in general over the classic version?
You don't need a bigger box, you've probably seen the warning saying that
it may be slower than the Classic version if the box is too small, but
this is more a disclaimer than something to worry about. If your box is
sized for the workload you expect, it will perform better with HPO.
Unfortunately there are a handful of sites where the hardware is
purchased first, typically based on its performance with the latest hot
3D shoot-em-all game, and the workload is then expected to fit on the box
because it can't possibly not fit when Doom performed so well and is so
much more graphically intensive. Reality being what it is, this does not
always work as expected and the reaction is then to inquire about HPO,
since obviously the computer is fast enough and the problem must be that
LISTSERV is not as advanced as Doom. Typically these machines have 16M,
maybe 32M, and with 16M you can rest assured that HPO will be slower. If
on the other hand you buy the machine intelligently, you will end up
putting (typically) 64M or more and this will not be an issue at all.
>Any negative side effects when using for non-list specific functions, or
>for small lists - say, is there more overhead for HPO version slower
>than with the classic version for some things?
Most of the HPO algorithms are selective and only kick in when
appropriate. It is possible that a workload with a very large number of
small lists might require more RAM with HPO than without, however it
should perform better.
>Does it have a different look or feel?
No, it looks exactly the same to the user.
Eric
|
|
|