0000000248cce9f3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Ed Finnell) writes: > As Lynn mentioned there were hardware mods for ACP/TPF to the 3081, 3083 > and 3090's. They were given new numbers 9081,9083 and of course 9190? I guess > shorter path lengths and such but couldn't find any details after a short > search.
besides the 3830 disk controller RPQ ... the 3083 was 3081 with one of the processors removed (at the time, acp/tpf didn't have tightly-coupled multiprocessor support) that still wasn't competitive ... so there was 3083 with specialized channel microcode operation tailored to ACP/TPF operation. I'm not familiar something similar for 3090. as mentioned 3081 technology wasn't competitive with clones: http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm initial 3081D per processor throughput was suppose to be faster than 3033 ... but many benchmarks have it about 20% slower. 3081K doubled the cache and per processor was suppose to improve to 50% faster than 3033 ... but many benchmarks were same as 3033. IBM 2-way multiprocessor technology from the period slowed the processor clock down by 10% to handle cross-cache activity. Going from 3081K to 3083K increased processor clock by nearly 15% (no multiprocessor clock slow-down) ... 3083 mostly done because all ACP/TPF customers might migrate to clone makers (since ACP/TPF didn't have multiprocessor support). Faster clock and tweaks for 3083jx got it up to 16% faster than 3081K (or supposedly almost 80% faster than 3033). 9083 had different I/O microcode load to bias for the typical higher channel i/o loads by ACP/TPF. It is possible that they may have done something similar for 3090, but I don't recollect any details. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
