Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:02:25 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, noslenj@swbell.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991215091514.53431B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991215010917.048dfae0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > At 09:07 PM 12/14/1999 , David Scheidt wrote: > > > > Multiprocessing has always been a stopgap measure to get extra performance > > > out of a machine until uniprocessors caught up. The diminishing returns > > > >But uniprocessors will never catch up. > > Actually, uniprocessors often do best in price/performance, because multiprocessor > servers are priced so high and CPUs represent such a large precentage of the price > of the system. On NonPC machines, CPU cost is a pretty small fraction of system cost. I have a quote to upgrade a pair of 2-way HP9000/892/T520 boxes to 10-way HP9000/891/T500s that happens to be sitting on my desk. The total cost is about 200K, of this, abour 40K is for the CPUs. The rest is bus converters, memory, SCSI cards, expansion card cages, disks, expansion racks, network interfaces and so on. If we were building the system from scratch, we would have to have also bought the CPU cabinet, power supplies, and more of everything else. I expect that CPU cost would be on the order of 10 or 15% of the purchase price of the machine. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.991215091514.53431B-100000>