This reliance on a DCL procedure to calculate VUPS isn't very reliable, other
than comparing the same command procedure on different systems to see the
difference.
I have two command procedures,
CALCULATE_VUPS.COM and
CALCVUPS.COM. They sure
don't agree with each other.
$ show lic/cha
VMS/LMF Charge Information for node DFE90A
This is a VAXstation 4000-90A, hardware model type 475
$ @calcvups
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 27.0
---------------------------------------------------------
AS800> show lic/cha
VMS/LMF Charge Information for node AS800
This is a AlphaServer 800 5/500, hardware model type 1585
AS800> @calcvups
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 141.8
---------------------------------------------------------
and
on the VAXstation 4000-90A
$ @calculate_vups
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 109.0 ( min: 109.0 max: 109.0 )
on the AlphaServer 800
AS800> @calculate_vups
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 516.0 ( min: 516.0 max: 516.0 )
So the gain of the AlphaServer over the VAXstation is about a factor of 4, using
the
CALCVUPS.COM procedure, while the factor with
CALCULATE_VUPS.COM is about
3.6. Ok, not too far off. However, consider the claims of performance sure is
a large difference between the two procedures. Don't know why.
Seems as if using either procedure can show differences, but not to be trusted
for showing total performance.
Now I think I'll see what the RX2660 has ...
Itanic> @calcvups
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 594.0
Itanic> @calculate_vups
INFO: Preventing endless loop (10$) on fast CPUs
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 2410.7 ( min: 2410.0 max: 2413.0 )
Again, the difference between the procedures is about a factor of 4.
Ok to use to see the Itanic is about 5 times the performance (using these
procedures) of the AlphaStation. Ain't process shrinks wonderful?
Just don't trust the totals ...