|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] AMD or Intel P4??
|
On Sun, 2002-06-09 at 11:59, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> First off, you're perhaps missing part of my point: more plentiful
> does not necessarily mean better. (And, quite frequently, it means
> worse. 10 million sheep are often wrong.)
I have to agree with this. This is especially true in the USA, where
people are known throughout the world for being cheap-asses. Casette
tape recorders are still more readily available here than MD recorders.
> > The news in the movie industry is that Linux on AMD or Intel is
> > replacing SGI. I heard the same about UPenn. The same combination is a
> > known replacement for Sun servers.
>
> Have you any real references for those claims or are they just FUD?
It doesn't matter, when intel "servers" do replace Sun, SGI servers,
etc., they are not normal PCs, but much more expensive intel-server
machines from Dell and the likes. After seeing the prices we pay for
some of them, they aren't a lot cheaper than Sun, SGI, and other more...
heavy-duty hardware,
> When PC hardware can give me 200 MB/s (or thereabouts) off an FCAL
> array, it's got a chance of replacing Suns. Trust me, it can't.
> (Can't even get close, really, as there's simply no way to do
> dynamic multi-pathing under Linux. Prove me wrong on that, I'd love
> to see it.)
Not only that, but Intel chips just suck at many things. They were
designed to remain compatible and be cheap. Any way you put it, this is
orthogonal to high performance and good design. I remember hearing
complaints on the NSA SELinux group (from developers) that there is
nothing you can do to completely stop stack overflow exploiuts on x86
type machines because of poor processor design.
> In any case, I get way more through the backplane on an E450 than
> I get through anything with an Intel processor in it. PC hardware's
> not even in the same league, and I don't think it wants to be. I'll
> be glad to prove this to anyone interested, specify what you want to
> see on the PC side. (Note that one doesn't have to do that on the
> Sun side; there are only several things, and they're all fast.)
Well that's right. PCs don't make great servers, but they make great
PCs, which is what they are to be used for anyhow. My Sun box in the
basement would make a crappy PC too. I think it's good in a way when
PCs encroach on this turf though because then it compels vendors to come
up with a wider range of hardware. You will see higher end PCs from
Dell, etc., and lower end servers from Sun. Of course the difference
here is that how high end can an intel machine get? Not very. I will
be impressed when I see an intel machine that can compete with an E10k.
;) People who talk about PCs taking over the server space have usually
just never dealth with machines of that class.
> > Then theres OS X, which in my opinion, would be better if it
> > wasn't tied only to Mac hardware.
>
> Why's that a bad thing?
I think just freedom of choice.
> One of the comments that I either forgot to make or that you
> neglected to respond to is that mac hardware stays in contented
> use way longer (as in years) than the PC-du-jour. Yes, I'm being
> lazy and bad by not providing a reference on that; maybe I'll dig
> one up after I'm done catching up on cypherpunks.
This is true of almost all non-pc equipment, not just macs. f.e. High
end Sun and SGI servers tend to be decommissioned after a few years, and
then they are often still more powerful and reliably than then-current
PCs and someone else who doesn't need the power of a new machine will
want to use them.
>
> --
> gabriel rosenkoetter
> gr@eclipsed.net
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|