I think that I made this point in my below. I was responding to an already working uni, with a peak problem, that was slated to possibly go to a 2 way with CP's rated at 1/2 the speed of the uni. In that case I would probably go with an upgraded uni although I would not put myself, if at all possible, in a position to be supporting a uni. in the first place. As Shmuel says, *it's not my dog*.
Kenneth E Tomiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It isn't going to a multiple engine machine that is bad for you, it is believing adding the speed of the two equals the speed of one that is wrong. Your throughput benefits from more than one, cpu bound work benefits from faster engines. Your quandry is now figuring out just how fast an engine you really need if you have more than one. On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:27:48 -0800, Patrick Falcone wrote: >I would be reluctant to move to a 2 way from a uni and potentially cut my rating by CP by half. I wouldn't want to be taking the calls when peak hits. I'm not comfortable with taking a .2 second CPU transaction and making it possibly a .4 second CPU transaction. Most likely there is also some latent demand but how much? I have a hard time believing that this scenario is workable. Those VPS CPU spikes can be painful, I resource capped. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
