"bilked" is my new favorite word.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Mohan, Ross wrote:
> Richly deserved IMNSHO. my current employer was bilked for many many months
> for a piece of crap E10K that barely outperforms a couple of AMD chips. But
> at many, many times the price. We finally upgraded/migrated to AI
quot;a good thing"; always nice to have a
> miracle. )
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD
Sun's stock was at $65.00 in late 2000 and has rocketed to $3.50. I think
somebody else besides us noticed too.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/26/2005 01:12:49 PM:
>
f Brent Wood
> > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:20 PM
> > To: Uwe C. Schroeder
> > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/25/2005 09:19:57 PM:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
>
> > Well, you overlook one thing there. SUN has always has a really good
I/O
> > performance - something far from negligible for a database application.
> > A lot of the PC systems lack that k
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brent Wood
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:20 PM
> To: Uwe C. Schroeder
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UltraSPARC versus AMD
>
>
>
&
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> Well, you overlook one thing there. SUN has always has a really good I/O
> performance - something far from negligible for a database application.
> A lot of the PC systems lack that kind of I/O thruput.
> Just compare a simple P4 with ATAPI drives
Mike Mascari wrote on 04/25/2005 09:21:02 PM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In my *utter* lack of enthusiasm over this option, I was gathering
> > ammunition for better hardware. I went to spec.org for speed
comparisons,
> > and sun.com for price comparisons. Sun's *entry* level servers are
mo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my *utter* lack of enthusiasm over this option, I was gathering
ammunition for better hardware. I went to spec.org for speed comparisons,
and sun.com for price comparisons. Sun's *entry* level servers are more
powerful when running AMD CPUs.
Just in case people still h
I am looking at options for a customer with an installed base of ~5000 Sun
workstations running 400-500MHz UltraSPARCs. They're not getting the
performance they need. They shipped me two Tadpole Bullfrog machines, a
Bullfrog I and a Bullfrog II for evaluation.
http://www.tadpole.com
1.28GHz sin
32 proc IBM boxes > 100+ SUN boxes. :)
Ben wrote:
We don't generally purchase monster machines. Sure, there are some
mainframes, but they are few and far between. Everything else doesn't
really have anything more than 32 procs.
---(end of broadcast)
As someone who works in a nationwide bank, let me tell you why we
choose IBM and Sun hardware: support. If we want to get a server for a
project, we can't just go get the most cost-efficient thing out there
for the job. We have a short list of servers that can be picked from,
and that's it. A g
Oh I'm sure in the past, Sun had way better I/O performance. But the gap
at least for entry-level servers has closed quite a lot with HT,
Inifiband, PCI-X, PCIe and so on available on for x86. Most x86 2P/4P
server MBs I've seen seem to have 2 PCI-X bridges, 1 PCI bridge and
separate bridges fo
Well, you overlook one thing there. SUN has always has a really good I/O
performance - something far from negligible for a database application.
A lot of the PC systems lack that kind of I/O thruput.
Just compare a simple P4 with ATAPI drives to the same P4 with 320 SCSI drives
- the speed differ
Looked on AMD's website. 132 for 4x875 on Windows, 126 on Linux.
(Probably Intel compiler on Windows, gcc on Linux.) That gets AMD into
the $100K 16+ processor Sun system area in terms of performance. Of
course, Sun still has a crapload of other uptime/reliability features
built-in to their sys
Aceshardware.com has a good UI for looking at Spec scores. They imported
all the results into their DB for easily comparisons between processors.
Single CPU (individual queries):
http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/index.jsp?b=0&s=0&v=4&if=0&if=1&if=2&a=0&a=1&a=2&a=3&a=5&a=6&a=7&ncf=1&nct=1&cpcf
I just got done comparing SPECMarks (on spec.org) between Sun's AMD entry
level servers versus similarly configured UltraSPARCs versus desktop AMD
based machines. Sun's AMD machines are twice as fast as their UItraSPARCs,
for approximately the same price. What a hoot.
Rick
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just got done comparing SPECMarks (on spec.org) between Sun's AMD entry
> level servers versus similarly configured UltraSPARCs versus desktop AMD
> based machines. Sun's AMD machines are twice as fast as their UItraSPARCs,
> for approximat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got done comparing SPECMarks (on spec.org) between Sun's AMD entry
level servers versus similarly configured UltraSPARCs versus desktop AMD
based machines. Sun's AMD machines are twice as fast as their UItraSPARCs,
for approximately the same price. What a hoot.
Not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/22/2005 10:08:46 AM:
> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I just got done comparing SPECMarks (on spec.org) between Sun's AMD
entry
> > level servers versus similarly configured UltraSPARCs versus desktop
AMD
> > based machines. Sun's AMD mac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I just got done comparing SPECMarks (on spec.org) between Sun's AMD entry
> level servers versus similarly configured UltraSPARCs versus desktop AMD
> based machines. Sun's AMD machines are twice as fast as their UItraSPARCs,
> for approximately the same price. What a
21 matches
Mail list logo
