Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:SAS-L@VTVM2.BITNET>
Return-Path: <@AWIIMC12.IMC.UNIVIE.AC.AT:SASMAINT@SUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sas-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:34:06 EST
Reply-To:     "Nelson R. Pardee" <SASMAINT@SUVM.BITNET>
From:         "Nelson R. Pardee" <SASMAINT@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      SAS Performance, Hard Disk controllers

A SUGI plug!  We're planning a repeat of last year's popular panel on
deciding which platform to run on.  Returning from last year by
popular demand will be Phil Miller, John Sims, and Randy Betancourt,
with your's truly moderating.  Hopefully, this year it won't be late
Wednesday morning!

Performance issues are really tricky.  There have been a couple of trade rag
articles recently focussing on comparisons of running the same
applications across platforms (specifically Windows, Mac, and some
UNIX flavor).  Interestingly enough, Windows platforms tend to come
out ahead (I believe also over the OS/2 application in one instance).
In one case, the reviewer was Windows biased but in the other the
reviewer was workstation/Mac biased.  These applications weren't SAS:
they were word processing, graphics programs, and spreadsheets.  So
the point an earlier poster made about what other programs you run
besides SAS is an important one.  Although it's nice to have the
fastest platform available, the platform only has to be fast enough
for *your* use.  The availability and cost of other applications may
have a large say in deciding what is the optimal platform.  It's your
application that counts when it comes to deciding.  one anomaly I
found in benchmarking my application is that the unix boxes were
fastest if I made certain I turned autoscroll off; if on, they
couldn't beat a PC- I had a really large program.

Hard disk controllers: there is some literature that indicates that a
good software cache is close to equivalent to a hardware caching
controller. This seems to run counter to a previous posting; your
mileage may vary.  It's also not easy to know what caching is going
on in your hardware; some cache is almost always included.  I *think*
many IDE drives included in Gateway systems have had some cache.  One
disadvantage I found to the EISA box (with a caching controller) is
that the EISA machine is harder to maintain and slower to boot (a
minor annoyance, but a pain when setting up new things, rebooting
often). My gut feeling is that for most folks the extra $$ (up to
1000) premium EISA often commands is not worth it.

Be sure when using either a hardware or software cache to set the
number of buffers in config.sys to some small number.  (If you're
running Windows you're probably running a software cache- SMARTDRV).
I've heard lots of recommendations, but I like 5 or fewer (I think
Microsoft says 10).  Be warned that lots of installation programs for
various program will make arbitrary decisions and set it to some
higher value without asking.  So, you may have to check it on a
regular basis.

I could ramble on about local bus vs EISA, etc., but it's really
beyond the scope of this list.  PC magazine had a discussion that is
much better than anything I can do in a sidebar with a recent
article- I think a review of Video boards or PCs (sorry I don't have
exact issue).
 --Nelson R. Pardee,  Computing Services, Syracuse University          --
 --120 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244-1190 USA   (315)443-1079         --
 --Bitnet: SASMAINT@SUVM     Internet: SASMAINT@SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU       --
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU