| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1811.1 | Documentation ... what a concept | ROGER::GAUDET | Because the Earth is 2/3 water | Thu Dec 22 1994 08:34 | 12 |
| From the READ_ME.TXT file supplied with HUBwatch for Windows V3.1:
HARDWARE REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION
==================================
...
* Minimum 12 megabytes of RAM; 16 megabytes recommended for high-port
density configuration
...
There are additional system tuning tips in this file also.
...Roger...
|
| 1811.2 | More performance questions | MAASUP::PORAMBO | | Thu Jan 12 1995 14:47 | 33 |
|
Hello ,
In regards to Hubwatch for Windows performance, I am a novice to the
product and I am trying to determine if the performance I am seeing is
reasonable.
Running V3.1 on a 486 Laptop with 8 or 12 Meg of memory
DECHUB 900
1 DECbridge900MX
4 DECrepeater900TM's
1 Decserver 90L+
2 DECbrouter 90's
It takes approximately 6 minutes from the time I specify the agent
unitil the screen is painted with the hub layout. During the time
we are waiting, the pc's disk is active almost non-stop.
My questions are:
1) Is this a reasonable time period?
2) Would increasing memory up to 16meg make that much of a difference
even though it appears that we are spending lots of time with disk
reads?
3) Any other performance suggestions?
Bob
|
| 1811.3 | Documentation ... what a concept, Part II | SLINK::HOOD | I'd rather be at the Penobscot | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:14 | 15 |
| > 1) Is this a reasonable time period?
It all depends. If you don't mind waiting for six minutes,
then yes, it is a reasonable time period. Otherwise, not.
> 2) Would increasing memory up to 16meg make that much of a difference
> even though it appears that we are spending lots of time with disk
> reads?
The disk reads are caused by lack of memory.
4 32-port repeaters safely qualifies as high port density.
Follow the recommendations from .1
Tom Hood
HUBwatch
|