From: grschmidt@acm.org   
      
   On 22/9/25 09:20, Arne Vajhøj wrote:   
   > On 9/21/2025 6:35 PM, David Wade wrote:   
   >> On 21/09/2025 21:31, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:56:33 +0100, David Wade wrote:   
   >>>> I remember looking at Alpha for Microsoft Exchange on Windows/NT. It   
   >>>> was   
   >>>> really hard to justify using an Alpha because Exchange is very IO   
   >>>> intensive. You couldn't get enough RAID to use the CPU.   
   >>>   
   >>> Or maybe Windows NT (and Exchange) were just too inefficient. Did you   
   >>> compare performance with DEC Unix on the same hardware? Linux was also   
   >>> starting to build a reputation for offering higher performance on the   
   >>> vendor’s own hardware than the vendor-supplied OS.   
   >>   
   >> Thats crap. Exchange is very efficient in terms of CPU use. It just   
   >> hammers the disks. So how could adding an Alpha CPU increase   
   >> performance. The alpha that is simply overkill. You could get the same   
   >> performance, running the same OS on much cheaper, lower performance,   
   >> in CPU terms boxes. You just need a mirror set for every 250 users...   
   >>   
   >> If you were Microsoft at the time you wanted Exchange which only runs   
   >> on Windows so other OSs not an option.   
   >   
   > For databases the argument was that 64 bit allowed for larger address   
   > space and more memory and more caching would increase performance.   
   >   
   > I don't know if that applies to Exchange as well.   
   >   
   > Arne   
   >   
   It doesn't matter - Windows on the Alpha was 32-bit, as was Exchange.   
      
   	Cheers,   
   		Gary	B-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)