From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 15:23:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C30616A4CE for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from cobra.acceleratedweb.net (cobra-gw.acceleratedweb.net [207.99.79.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE86443D2D for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:23:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from simon@optinet.com) Received: (qmail 68234 invoked by uid 110); 18 Mar 2004 23:23:41 -0000 Received: from ool-18baaf5c.dyn.optonline.net (HELO win2kpc1) (24.186.175.92) by cobra.acceleratedweb.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 23:23:41 -0000 From: "Simon" To: "Olaf Hoyer" Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:24:23 -0500 Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.20.2661) For Windows 2000 (5.0.2195;4) In-Reply-To: <20040318235000.B44078@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20040318232348.BE86443D2D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: Artem Koutchine cc: Lanny Baron cc: "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system VS one processor system X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:23:49 -0000 What exactly is not easily achievable with a modern dual Xeon Intel server with 20 modern SCSI harddrives and proper RAID card? that is on an old E450 Sparc? have you personally done any testing to back this up? surely, the chipset design of Intel boards are not up-to-par with latest Sun servers, but Intel is catching up. There was just never enough demand until now. -Simon On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:59:12 +0100 (CET), Olaf Hoyer wrote: >On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Simon wrote: > >> >> Sounds like a cool feature. What detects/monitors the CPUs to spot any problems >> and mark them offline at the next reboot? is this a feature of FreeBSD or motherboards >> you use? I have never heard of anything like this on Intel based servers, before. >> >Hi! > >No, its a feature of a real "Server"-Mainboard. > >Standard feature in real iron, meaning non-i386 based. > >I hava @work lots of suns sitting around, that also get beaten and >(ab)used quite a lot, and then, we also have some share of defective >CPU's a year. But... the things an old 450 with 400 MHz CPUs and 20 >HDD's stacked will do >I/O-Wise, is not easily achievable with some modern dual-Xeon Server. > >in Intel world, I rarely experienced flaky CPU, but these i386 boxes are >rarely loaded to the load a Solaris/Sparc box can take, in most cases >the Intel box simply runs out of I/O-possibilities. > >I have some boxes here, that never go below 1000 procs simultaneously. >So a load of 10 or so is normal there. (Ok, they have more than 4 CPU, >though) > > >> PS: then again, I never had a CPU fail after it passed DOA, maybe I haven't gone >> through enough CPUs, yet. >Well, in i386 world, CPUs are mostly only going south when cooling is >bad, or you get some current spikes or so, with real iron, that is being >really beaten up, you have this more often. >But real iron also remains in production use for more that 3 years... > > > >Just my 0.02 Euro on this >Olaf >-- >Olaf Hoyer ohoyer@gaff.hhhr.ision.net >Fuerchterliche Erlebniss geben zu raten, >ob der, welcher sie erlebt, nicht etwas Fuerchterliches ist. >(Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Boese) >