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