[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:TAEC::BEROUD
Created:Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:6497
Total number of notes:27359

4102.0. "TSAM 32Mb recommendation?" by VCSESU::WADE (Bill Wade, VAXc Systems & Support Eng) Tue Nov 17 1992 16:12

    Is there a reason for specifying 32Mb as the minimum for TSAM?  
    This deviates from the recommendation of 24Mb for BMS and I'd like to
    know if TSAM supports a 24Mb platform?
    
    The reason I ask is we would like to specify the 4000 VLC (24Mb limit) 
    as a minimal configuration for our management platform which includes 
    DECmcc Director 1.2, ELM AM 1.2 and TSAM 1.0. 
    
    Thanks,
    Bill
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
4102.1Performance...TOOK::MINTZLKG2-2 near pole X3, cube 6072, dtn 226-5033Wed Nov 18 1992 00:3310
The BMS SPD specifies 24 Mb as an absolute minimum, and as such, will
be supported.  It is likely however that such a minimal system will not
provide acceptable performance when subjected to any significant load. 
So you may want to reconsider locking the customer in to something
that can not be expanded if their needs grow.  You may also wish
to experiment with the system sizing tool (pointer in NOTED::MCC-TOOLS).

I can't speak for the TSAM or ELM developers, but their requirement
of 32 Mb is not unreasonable.
4102.2BMS V1.3 recommends 32 MBCHRISB::BRIENENNetwork Management Applications!Thu Nov 19 1992 17:4310
The DECmcc BMS =V1.3= SPD that I'm currently reviewing says the minimum
recommended configuration for OpenVMS is:

		Processor Capacity:	6 SPECmarks
		Memory Required:	32 MB
		Disk:			RZ25 

I agree with Erik, don't lock the user into an unusable configuration...

						Chris
4102.3TOOK::FONSECAI heard it through the Grapevine...Fri Nov 20 1992 13:0420
I'm of two minds here.  First let me say that many users of TSAM would love to
see its performance improve.  Going with a smaller system probably is
going to cut into that already lower than desired performance rating.  Why
set yourself up for failure?

But to take the opposite side of the argument, I think I know how that
number for TSAM was arrived at.  Lets just say it involves a hat.  There was
no extensive testing to figure out what the right numbers were at least
for TSAM.  If you don't like the recommended configuration, then benchmark
the low-end system and see whether it meets the requirements.  It is a lot
of work, but you will then know what the numbers are.  Send or post
your results, we will all gain.

Also, I don't know hardware.  If the platform you are looking at is not
upwardly expandable memory-wise after the customer gets it, I strongly recommend
not going that way.  Once people get familiar with DECmcc, I would guess
they are going to want it to do more. If there is not room to grow,
they will not be pleased.

-Dave