From: ben@rex.uokhsc.edu (Benjamin Z. Goldsteen) Subject: Re: X terminals: Suggestion for projects like SLS, MCC, etc. Date: 15 Jun 1993 08:11:49 GMT
While I have to agree with Mark Davis about a few things, I think
these numbers need to be fixed up.
mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>How much does your 'host' cost -- the thing that's got all the disk and
>>RAM necessary to support your X terminals? More than $400? More than
>>$4000?
>The host costs roughly 50k
>>Let's do simple math involving 10 X terminals and 10 PCs.
>>10 PCs x $1200 = $ 12,000
>>(10 X terminals x 875) + (1 host x 10,000) = 20,750
>Well, I would look at it more like this:
>100 PC's x $1500 = $150,000 + OS's, config's, etc of $50,000 = $200,000
>1 super micro + OS, config, etc of $50,000 + 90 text terminals @ $400 +
>10 X terminals @ $875 + SERVER at $400 = $95,150.
>We could come up with all kinds of numbers depending on what the requirements
>are. I have a flexible configuration to support a wide variety of displays.
>This cuts costs.
Hmm -- 100 $1500 PC's versus 90 text terminals? I can not even
find a 286 anymore -- the cheapest PC's I can find are 386SX-33's. They
are much faster than a text terminal at text work, and they can do
graphics (at $400/dumb terminal, you are not doing graphics).
I am not sure what the specs are on the $875 X terminals are, but I
assume they are 14" B&W 70K Xstone X terminals. I assume the $1500 PC's
up there also have B&W monitors (good B&W monitors ones are under $200).
Also, to get a server equivalent of the power in 100 PC's
(adjusting for multitasking) you need at least 150 SPECs. You also need
quite a bit of RAM. For this solution to beat the cost of the PC
solution, we have average less than $600/X terminal or $60,000. Now, we
do not need a 150 SPEC cpu -- it could be 10 15 SPEC CPU's (for most
purposes). In that $60,000, we have to include $8000 for 4 GB of disk,
$4000 for 96 MB of RAM, and whatever for various Ethernet cards,
controllers, etc.
The dumb terminal solution (dumb terminals can be X based) are MUCH
cheaper if your users tend not to use their computers, though (because
then you do not need as good a host).
My basic problem with this solution is that it uses up all its
bandwidth for day-to-day operations. That is, he is now utilizing 4
Ethernets. What happens when we want to do teleconferencing or imaging?
You are just not going to get 10 people doing full screen visualizations
over Ethernet at the same time. When you have to bring in the SGI
workstations, does your scheme go to poop (that is my problem with one
vendor solutions -- if your vendor does not provide it, you are
screwed)?
The X terminal solution is probably more cost effective when you
add everything in (including people time), but it may not be flexible
enough. There are advantages and disadvantages as he has noted many
times. I like the distributed solution because it offers empowerment,
but as he has noted, his users do not worry about backup's, archiving,
etc.
-- Benjamin Z. Goldsteen