From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 20:31:07 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 9A3A516A4CE for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.freebsdsystems.com (mx1.FreeBSDsystems.COM [69.90.68.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2839443D41 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:31:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lnb@FreeBSDsystems.COM) Received: (qmail 77383 invoked by uid 0); 19 Mar 2004 04:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (lnb@216.235.9.82) by mx1.freebsdsystems.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 04:30:53 -0000 From: Lanny Baron To: Erich Dollansky In-Reply-To: <405A6537.2070607@pacific.net.sg> References: <20040318232348.BE86443D2D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20040319013145.P44321@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> <405A6537.2070607@pacific.net.sg> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: FreeBSD Systems, Inc. Message-Id: <1079670664.33813.72.camel@panda> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:31:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" cc: Artem Koutchine cc: Olaf Hoyer 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: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:31:07 -0000 On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 22:12, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > Olaf Hoyer wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Simon wrote: > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > Yes, its an E450 with 4x400MHZ Ultrasparc 2, IIRC with 2 or 4MB 2nd > > level cache, acting as mail server, pumping several millions of emails > > around per day, with 2 million mailboxes to deliver to, being one of > > several mailhosts. > > > > Thats a region where a i386-based box won't fit easily, also the > > diagnostics regarding flaky RAM or CPU are way better with SUN than with > > most i386-based hardware. > > > > People tend to forget that the CPU clock rate of all Sun boxes is > pretty low but the I/O bandwith is much higher than the memory > bandwith of Xeon machine. > > Little things like changing a CPU while the machine is up and > running is not known to PC based servers at all. > > A PC based server is good when you have to consider the money but > will increase the risk of down-time. > That very strongly depends on what kind of pc Server you buy. A high quality Server with fully redundant power, dual or quad CPU's, dual NICs, IPMI compliant, you will have one hell of a time showing me downtime due to hardware. Yes, if the Server Board blows, it matters not if it is a Sun or PC based. But then when it comes to mission critical, a second lower cost or entry level Server as a backup or failover will keep the 'lights on'. The thing here is, how well does a company stand behind its product and how quickly (or slowly) will you get looked after is very important. Lanny > Erich -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Lanny Baron Proud to be 100% FreeBSD http://www.FreeBSDsystems.COM =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=