Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 07:31:46 -0500 From: "Ryan Watson" <watsonr@gulliver.summitoh.net> To: "Tom Samplonius" <tom@sdf.com> Cc: <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Maximum recommended user limits on mail server Message-ID: <001d01c2eedc$bc1c1cd0$d70d10ac@summitoh.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10303191917110.26390-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You should probably look that up. Even the lowly Dell Poweredge 2650 > has a 8GB memory limit. That's because it's more than one CPU, each x86 can address only 4Gigs. Trust me on this one, it's physics. BTW, are you a Dell salesperson? Sit down with a piece of paper, and figure out what the largest number you can come up with, with only 32 bits? Oh yeah, that means you do it with a base of 2, not 10. > If you just flip the meaning of everything above, it sounds right. > > * The Itanium has no signficant server market share. No one except HP > is even comitted to Itanium. Dell is commited to Itanium, in case you missed it. > > * Lots of enterprises use Xeon (or even just P3/P4) boxes becuase with > n-tier apps, individual server performance is unimportant. Look at the > statements from Google's CTO on processors. Brace yourself, their > enterprise is definitely bigger than yours, and has no ultrasparcs. And > look, they all have jobs! And look, Dell has just announced that "Unix > (they mean Solaris) is dead", and they are moving their Oracle supply > chain app to intel boxes. Google does it with something called Beowolf clustering, which means they're taking the power of lots of machines and using it as one, a much different beast entirely. Also, Google does have sparcs, not many, but they do have them. As for Dell announcing that "Unix is Dead", buy a clue. Dell would say that because Dell doesn't make money from Unix. Dell is MS's schill, so they'll say whatever Bill tells them to. Dell isn't moving their Oracle supply chain app to intel, Dell doesn't do anything but Intel anyhow, and if they were running a Unix system for their supply chain, that's even more proof of the superiority of *nix over Windows. > > * 64 bit doesn't mean that you automatically go twice as fast. It simply > means your registers are bigger, so certain operations are faster. x86 > processors fetch data in 64bit or 128bit chunks already. > x86's do not fetch data in 64bit or 128bit chunks. You tell me what bus in a PC is 64 or even 128bits wide? The PCI bus in a PC is 32bits wide. You still run Windows 3.1 don't you? Because there's no difference between 16bit and 32bit, right? > * As far as Sparc goes, they're out of money. They keep talking about a > Ultrasparc III processor (3i, I believe) that is supposed to be a "Xeon > killer". A year later, and well... > You may bring whatever Xeon you want here to Akron, Ohio, and try it against our 2 V880's. You'll never keep up. The Windows geek has tried this about 10 times by now, and each time lost. For instance... we both attempted to create the real estate DB with Oracle. It's a db of about 8 gigs. It took the Dell PowerEdge about 5 hours to complete, it took the V880 about 16 minutes. See this when reading below as well because this is what I'm talking about when I mean load. You really should invest in some college courses. Ryan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001d01c2eedc$bc1c1cd0$d70d10ac>