On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:50:39 +1100 Erik Christiansen <dva...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> On 18.10.18 11:37, Steve Litt wrote: > > OK. Next question. What is the cost difference between a computer > > terminal and a low power computer with the muscle to run apps whose > > data is on the central server? > > The price of hardware was entirely different back then, making re-use > much more compelling cost-wise. But the grunt wasn't there in my > experience. To go with an HP64000 microprocessor development system, > back in the 80s, I bought a small server with a (for then) big disk, > and four green terminals IIRC. The whitepaper extolling its virtues > claimed it'd be just spiffy for 4 users, with graphs, tables, and > pages of text to "prove" it. But in practice the 68040 CPU only > sufficed for editing. Once the team hit it with concurrent compiles, > it died in the derriere. From then on, I was a convert to distributed > processing, and sprinkled sparcstations about instead. (OK, LAN was > over co-ax back then, and an unaware user could bring that down just > by knocking the 50 ohm termination off the T-connector on the back of > his machine, if it was the last on the run. Much easier to find if > you'd run the cable, than if you had to hunt for it.) > > > If one uses terminals, how many users can a high power computer > > handle? 50? 100? On the other hand, if every user contributes > > enough CPU to run the apps, it could be thousands. > > With CPU, RAM, and HD costing only beans now, we can can now give each > user what was then a supercomputer, for what they paid for a terminal. > Apart from the increased performance, even with what we had back then, > the fault tolerance inherent in distributed computing didn't escape my > notice, given responsibility for meeting project deadlines. > > Another team did go for a humungous refrigerator-sized quad-cpu HP > compute server with 50 hard drives in a second refrigerator-sized > enclosure, but I stayed distributed. (The quad-cpu mobo was nearly a > yard square.) > > Erik Thanks Erik, You beautifully said what I was trying to. "Multi-seat" makes little sense now that when you add a user you can give him or her a $400 computer with which he can share the server's data. I'm of the opinion that "multi-seat" isn't a benefit, it isn't a feature, it's just a marketing gimmick not a whole lot different than a magnesium paddle shifter in a car. And to refresh memories of context earlier in this thread, "multi-seat" is one of the many systemd features that I opined did not need to be reproduced by the Debian project, or anyone else. SteveT Steve Litt September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
