RE: Trivia: Processor MHz

[Jim Damato <jdamato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> jt:
>I didn't intend to imply that Unix is MORE capable or better suited to
>parallel processing.  Just that it's more widely implemented on the box.

I've implemented a fair number of large and small Unix-based business
applications and I just don't see it.  Maybe this type of multi-stream
technology is out there in the scientific community, but it's definitely not
there for our segment of the market.  Technology such as Oracle Parallel
Query can only do so much, and I don't see the business world using Unix
systems as a parallel processing powerhouse.  Not to the degree that one can
really say "That's one area the *nix (and maybe PASE?) just kicks the crap
out of OS/400".

As a large retailer one of our persistent business concerns is concurrency
because of our high volumes of transactional data.  With every app we
implement, Unix, NT, or AS/400, we find that parallel processing is not
built in to the software or inherently a part of the underlying technology.
Modifications to facilitate multiple streams of data loads, or to
concurrently handle a single process have required major architecture
changes from the database and up.

I would say that the iSeries and Unix have similar capabilities for parallel
processing, and similar pitfalls and limitations.  Most of the work that I
see on either platform equates to greater numbers of concurrent user
connections or reduced contention among concurrent single-stream batch jobs.

-Jim

James P. Damato
Manager - Technical Administration
Dollar General Corporation
<mailto:jdamato@dollargeneral.com>