Re: Beyond the EC12
W dniu 2014-04-26 03:43, zMan pisze: I've heard rumors that the names are often not determined until shortly before release anyway, after some not-so-fun marketing meetings... Does it really matter? Would IBM sell any more piece of EC12 if they had chosen more sexy name? Was z196 a flop because of poor name? IMHO this is one of the products where the name and sexy look are completely irrelevant. Like a drilling rig or reinforcement steel rods. My €0.02 -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku. This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive. mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warszawie, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa, www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2014 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości wpłacony) wynosi 168.696.052 złote. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Beyond the EC12
Without meaning to be defensive z196 a flop? I've encountered tons of them. Cheers, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator, Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM +44-7802-245-584 email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker Blog: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker From: R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Date: 26/04/2014 14:51 Subject:Re: Beyond the EC12 Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu W dniu 2014-04-26 03:43, zMan pisze: I've heard rumors that the names are often not determined until shortly before release anyway, after some not-so-fun marketing meetings... Does it really matter? Would IBM sell any more piece of EC12 if they had chosen more sexy name? Was z196 a flop because of poor name? IMHO this is one of the products where the name and sexy look are completely irrelevant. Like a drilling rig or reinforcement steel rods. My €0.02 -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku. This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive. mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warszawie, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa, www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2014 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości wpłacony) wynosi 168.696.052 złote. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Beyond the EC12
Since it's the weekend: in Ireland, license plates are assigned to a car and never change when ownership changes, and the license numbers have always been YY-COUNTY-NUMBER, where YY is the year of the car's manufacture. Our 2008 Ford plate is 08-CE-4088 for County Clare. In anticipation of Irish superstitions, the year was changed for the 2013 year models; cars sold in the first half of 2013 had 131-CO-number and 132-CO-number for the last half, so no one would have a plate with a 13. Barry Merrill -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Nims,Alva John (Al) Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Beyond the EC12 If the superstition about 13 was considered, why did they come out with z/OS 1.13? :) Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 Information Technology University of Florida (352) 273-1298 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:48 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Beyond the EC12 On 4/25/2014 8:09 AM, Klein, Kenneth E wrote: Has anyone heard any good rumors about what will be coming out next year as the latest and greatest model? z296? Ec14? You bring up an interest point to contemplate as IBM eventually considers official names for its 13th-generation machine (if and when such a thing is produced). Is there still enough superstition about the number '13' that they will avoid using it and come up with something completely different? Or will they stick with EC13/BC13? For the record, I consider it unlikely that they will leap ahead to '14' and be out-of-sync forever more. I also believe the chances close to 'nil' that they will reduce from 120 cores on EC12 back down to 96 for the next generation, making any name ending in '96' not worthy of consideration. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Beyond the EC12
That's interesting .Why did they do the 131/132 thing, though? If they didn't run out in other years, why did they suddenly feel the need to double the address space? Or were they already on the verge of running out, in which case the alleged reason might be an urban legend? On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Barry Merrill ba...@mxg.com wrote: Since it's the weekend: in Ireland, license plates are assigned to a car and never change when ownership changes, and the license numbers have always been YY-COUNTY-NUMBER, where YY is the year of the car's manufacture. Our 2008 Ford plate is 08-CE-4088 for County Clare. In anticipation of Irish superstitions, the year was changed for the 2013 year models; cars sold in the first half of 2013 had 131-CO-number and 132-CO-number for the last half, so no one would have a plate with a 13. Barry Merrill -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Nims,Alva John (Al) Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Beyond the EC12 If the superstition about 13 was considered, why did they come out with z/OS 1.13? :) Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 Information Technology University of Florida (352) 273-1298 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:48 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Beyond the EC12 On 4/25/2014 8:09 AM, Klein, Kenneth E wrote: Has anyone heard any good rumors about what will be coming out next year as the latest and greatest model? z296? Ec14? You bring up an interest point to contemplate as IBM eventually considers official names for its 13th-generation machine (if and when such a thing is produced). Is there still enough superstition about the number '13' that they will avoid using it and come up with something completely different? Or will they stick with EC13/BC13? For the record, I consider it unlikely that they will leap ahead to '14' and be out-of-sync forever more. I also believe the chances close to 'nil' that they will reduce from 120 cores on EC12 back down to 96 for the next generation, making any name ending in '96' not worthy of consideration. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Beyond the EC12
zMan's question is a good one, but the reversion to just 14 for the year 2014 does add credence to the notion that superstition was the rationale for the one-off 2013 scheme. The distinction that needs to be remembered is that in Eire, Italy and a number of other European countries these plates record vehicle-registration information. They are not circulation licenses issued to 'persons'. (There are, of course, both public, usually automobile association, and law-enforcement databases that can be queried to obtain current-ownership information from a VR number.) John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Beyond the EC12
No urban legend - the plan was publicized well in advance of 2013 that there would be no year 13 plates issued, period. There was no shortage of numbers in years before or after 13. Car dealers did complain that their sales were way down in June, as buyers then wanted the 132 as a sign of a newer car than the 131's of the first half. Barry -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 9:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Beyond the EC12 That's interesting .Why did they do the 131/132 thing, though? If they didn't run out in other years, why did they suddenly feel the need to double the address space? Or were they already on the verge of running out, in which case the alleged reason might be an urban legend? On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Barry Merrill ba...@mxg.com wrote: Since it's the weekend: in Ireland, license plates are assigned to a car and never change when ownership changes, and the license numbers have always been YY-COUNTY-NUMBER, where YY is the year of the car's manufacture. Our 2008 Ford plate is 08-CE-4088 for County Clare. In anticipation of Irish superstitions, the year was changed for the 2013 year models; cars sold in the first half of 2013 had 131-CO-number and 132-CO-number for the last half, so no one would have a plate with a 13. Barry Merrill -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Nims,Alva John (Al) Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Beyond the EC12 If the superstition about 13 was considered, why did they come out with z/OS 1.13? :) Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 Information Technology University of Florida (352) 273-1298 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:48 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Beyond the EC12 On 4/25/2014 8:09 AM, Klein, Kenneth E wrote: Has anyone heard any good rumors about what will be coming out next year as the latest and greatest model? z296? Ec14? You bring up an interest point to contemplate as IBM eventually considers official names for its 13th-generation machine (if and when such a thing is produced). Is there still enough superstition about the number '13' that they will avoid using it and come up with something completely different? Or will they stick with EC13/BC13? For the record, I consider it unlikely that they will leap ahead to '14' and be out-of-sync forever more. I also believe the chances close to 'nil' that they will reduce from 120 cores on EC12 back down to 96 for the next generation, making any name ending in '96' not worthy of consideration. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Beyond the EC12
aledlhug...@aol.com (Aled Hughes) writes: Back in the early '80s, I was told that IBM's Model Range for the 3083 - E, B and J - used the initial letter of the Product Managers' last names for the models. Anyone know if this was true? some 3083 topic drift this account has 3081 ( 3033) using warmed over FS technology ... both started off QD efforts to get stuff back in the 370 product pipelines (after demise of FS ... FS was completely different than 370 and was going to completely replace it ... 370 efforts were being killed off during the FS period ... and the lack of 370 products during the period is credited with clone processors getting market foothold). http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.hm posts mentioning FS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys The initial 3081D was supposedly two 5mip processors but some benchmarks had it slower than 3033 (at around 4-4.5mips). Doubling cache for 3081K then supposedly was two 7mip processors ... and some benchmarks had it about same as 3033. 3081 was initially going to be multiprocessor only ... but TPF (renamed airline congrol program) didn't have multiprocessor support and there was concern that the whole TPF customer base would migrate to clone vendors (which continued to ship newer, faster uniprocessors). Initial response was some very unnatural things done to vm370 for customized TPF running in virtual machine on 3081 (but significantly impacting vm370 throughput for all other customers). They eventually decide to come out with single processor 3083 ... part of the problem was simply removing the 2nd 3081 processor ... was it was in the middle of the box ... which would have made the box dangerously top heavy ... so they had to remove the top processor and rewire the box for the only processor in the middle of the box. Also the latency and throughput of the I/O microcode in the 3081 was really poor ... and TPF environments tended to be very I/O intensive ... as a result there were also customized I/O microcode loads for 3083 TPF environments (that attempted to compensate/mask its otherwise poor performance characteristics). The other issue is long time POK 370s had 10-15% hardware multiprocessor penalty ... processor clock was slowed down 10-15% (compared to single processor machine) to allow for cross-cache synchronization in two-processor system. In theory initial 3083 processor should have gotten a 10-15% processor boost (over 3081), but it continued to run the processor clock at 3081 speed. Lots of difficulty going to 3084 because each processor cache had to deal with three other caches instead of only one other cache. For 3084, MVS VM370 got a lot of storage allocation work, kernel storage was change to multiple of cache-line size and aligned on cache boundaries (so didn't have two different pieces of storage occupying same cache line) ... which is claimed to increased overall performance by 5-6% (for 4-way operation). some past 3083 posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#38 MVCIN instruction http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#65 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#16 Sabre Talk Information? -- 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
Re: Beyond the EC12
Werent they developed at La Gaude ? I was there in the 90s Regards, Scott From: Anne Lynn Wheeler Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 2:34 PM To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List aledlhug...@aol.com (Aled Hughes) writes: Back in the early '80s, I was told that IBM's Model Range for the 3083 - E, B and J - used the initial letter of the Product Managers' last names for the models. Anyone know if this was true? some 3083 topic drift this account has 3081 ( 3033) using warmed over FS technology ... both started off QD efforts to get stuff back in the 370 product pipelines (after demise of FS ... FS was completely different than 370 and was going to completely replace it ... 370 efforts were being killed off during the FS period ... and the lack of 370 products during the period is credited with clone processors getting market foothold). http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.hm posts mentioning FS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys The initial 3081D was supposedly two 5mip processors but some benchmarks had it slower than 3033 (at around 4-4.5mips). Doubling cache for 3081K then supposedly was two 7mip processors ... and some benchmarks had it about same as 3033. 3081 was initially going to be multiprocessor only ... but TPF (renamed airline congrol program) didn't have multiprocessor support and there was concern that the whole TPF customer base would migrate to clone vendors (which continued to ship newer, faster uniprocessors). Initial response was some very unnatural things done to vm370 for customized TPF running in virtual machine on 3081 (but significantly impacting vm370 throughput for all other customers). They eventually decide to come out with single processor 3083 ... part of the problem was simply removing the 2nd 3081 processor ... was it was in the middle of the box ... which would have made the box dangerously top heavy ... so they had to remove the top processor and rewire the box for the only processor in the middle of the box. Also the latency and throughput of the I/O microcode in the 3081 was really poor ... and TPF environments tended to be very I/O intensive ... as a result there were also customized I/O microcode loads for 3083 TPF environments (that attempted to compensate/mask its otherwise poor performance characteristics). The other issue is long time POK 370s had 10-15% hardware multiprocessor penalty ... processor clock was slowed down 10-15% (compared to single processor machine) to allow for cross-cache synchronization in two-processor system. In theory initial 3083 processor should have gotten a 10-15% processor boost (over 3081), but it continued to run the processor clock at 3081 speed. Lots of difficulty going to 3084 because each processor cache had to deal with three other caches instead of only one other cache. For 3084, MVS VM370 got a lot of storage allocation work, kernel storage was change to multiple of cache-line size and aligned on cache boundaries (so didn't have two different pieces of storage occupying same cache line) ... which is claimed to increased overall performance by 5-6% (for 4-way operation). some past 3083 posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#38 MVCIN instruction http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#65 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#16 Sabre Talk Information? -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Beyond the EC12
scott_j_f...@yahoo.com (Scott Ford) writes: Werent they developed at La Gaude ? I was there in the 90s re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.htm#49 Beyond the EC12 4341 was being done in Endicott, maybe thinking about (slower) 4331 that was being done in Europe (Boeblingen) on 4361 (4331 followon) http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP4331.html Date: 08/26/82 12:00:34 From: wheeler to be fair, Endicott has a faster 4341mp that they won't get to announce. POK has strapped back a 3081 to create a slowdown'ed 3083 and I expect that Endicott is now under POK's thumb, they will not be allowed to do anything more in that area ... 4341 frame was engineered to hold two CPUs and 16meg of 32k OEM chips (in case IBM tried to screw them on deliveries of IBM 64k chips). The E7 would only be a little slower than the 3083. Also it is not clear from some of the high I/O benchmark reports whether or not the 3081 technology with high I/O rates high task switch rates (lots of cycle stealing lower cache hit ratios) is faster than a 3033. ... snip ... other past 4300 email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx 3033 was by POK 168 group ... mapping 168 logic to 20% faster chips from FS, at the same time 3081 was being done by different group As soon as 3033 is out the door, that group starts on 3090 (in parallel with the 308x efforts). I've mentioned before cluster of (original) 4341 had more aggregate processing power than 3033, more aggregate memory than 3033, more aggregate I/O than 3033, lower cost than 3033, and much lower space environmental footprint than 3033. At one point, head of POK getting allocation of critical 4341 manufacturing component cut in half (as way of dealing with 4341 competition). With minor tweak, 4341 channels handle datastreaming 3mbytes/sec. By the time, 3083 is coming out the door, Endicott has faster 4341. 3083 http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP3083.html 3081 http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP3081.html 3081 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3081 recent slightly related 370xa/3081 folklore ... or how I got to spend 3hrs being interviewed by FBI agent (recent linkedin discussion about two bldgs crammed full of old 360370 systems have been found) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#27 Complete 360 and 370 systems found 308x channels are slow and have lots of issues: Date: 09/17/82 10:40:29 From: wheeler Talking to a GPD engineer he says that IBM has not technical talent to come out with another control unit. As an example, he said that when he joined the group out here, there were at least 10-12 people in his area alone that understood the channel interface ... he thinks that there might be one such person now in the whole GPD division ... the rest have left the company. I've heard what sounds like contigency projects on the east coast with channel development that completely bypass control units and connects directly to drives. I was in meetings all day yesterday, but one time I stopped by my office two people down the hall were talking about head crash on 3380 and now might be a good time to sell all your IBM stock. SJRLVM1 took head crash on customer ship level of 3380s yesterday and they replaced the HDAs last night in the box. ... Performance numbers for the 3084 seem to have some liberties. 4-way should have three times the performance interferance that a 2-way (cache invalidation signals from 3 other processors instead of one). They cheat with the 3083 versis 3081. for example, on a 158ap, running a UP generated system ... the processor runs 10% slower if the switch on the machine is in AP-mode rather than UP-mode (additional delay in each machine cycle just to listen for cache invalidation signals from the other processor ... this is w/o the other processor even executing anything generating storage alterations cache invalidation signals). For 3083 the machine cycle invalidation listening delay was left in the machine. I've heard that the 3084 numbers are somewhat selected benchmarks that do minimal storage alterations ... extensive storage alteration programs can have disastrous effects on 3084 performance. ... I've been told that almost every control unit that has attached to a 308x has had to undergo hardware ECs ... apparently it was easier for every control unit hardware group in the company (even on machines no longer with development group people available) to resolve the problems than for the 308x channels. Also did you see the message that ACP runs 20% slower on a 3081d than on a 3033. On a 3081k, ACP runs 5% faster than a 3033. POK is started a special 3081k CPU program where the 3081s coming down the line will be tested to see if they can run with their clock cranked down. If they pass, they will be special high performance 3081Ks which run slightly faster than normal 3081ks. ... snip ... Note that there was some early 3380 quality problems with sticktion
