Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:12:55 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> To: Olaf Hoyer <ohoyer@ohoyer.de> Cc: Lanny Baron <lnb@FreeBSDsystems.COM> Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system VS one processor system Message-ID: <405A6537.2070607@pacific.net.sg> In-Reply-To: <20040319013145.P44321@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> References: <20040318232348.BE86443D2D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20040319013145.P44321@gaff.hhhr.ision.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?405A6537.2070607>