It supprised me also. I had switched to Intel because of cost but lately I've switch back to Sun. It would be interesting to compare numbers between a Compaq and Dell. You would think they would be similar but I think there is a great deal of difference between a $400 2.8 gig P4 and an $800 2.8 gig P4. I did switch from Dell to Sun, but I never did any detailed beachmarking. My informal testing made me think the Sun was as fast or faster.
I've run on Intel (Windows and Linux), OSX and Sun. The great thing about AOLServer is you can switch platforms with very little effort. I've even developed on Sun and deployed on Windows with no problems. I did look up the wattage on the Sun and Compaq and they are similar. I suspect the Sparc chip uses less power but by the time you run the rest of the stuff inside the machine there is not much difference. The X1/V100's are a different story. I think they use around 30 watts, but it probably takes 5 to 10 of them to equal a v240. Whatever you pick take a look at the Apple Xraid. 3.5 terabytes and fibre channel for 10K is a good deal and they work just fine with a v240 and Solaris. I even used Apple's fibre channel card in the Sun box. Rumor has it they also work with Linux. Not only are the cheap per gig I think they beat scsi on performance because for the same price you can get nearly 3x the number of spindles while scsi only has 2x the rotation speed. Barry On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 02:04PM, Bas Scheffers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adam Leff said: >> The Sun V240 is a 2x1Ghz UltraSparcIIIi running Sol9... I didn't have a >> 1.28Ghz box available at the time I was doing the tests. The DL 360 is >> a 2x2.8Ghz Xeon. The Proliant is a 2x3.2Ghz Xeon. All with 2 GB of >Wow, that's closer than I thought! Mind you, you can get a 2x >3.2GHz/2GB/2x73GB15K machine for a lot less from Dell than from HP/Compaq. > >But in the end, I guess when you buy brands, it doesn't seem to matter >much in price if you go with Sun or any other. I wonder if these 1GHz Suns >also need less juice and stay cooler. Not an unimportant consideration; >apperantly Google settled on 1GHz machines for their Ireland data centre >for that same reason as they could fit more machines in and thus have more >CPU power in total. > >> RAM. So yes, you could argue that the Proliant results are possible >> skewed because of the difference in processor speed. >And cache? That 2.8 probably has 512K, the 3.2 likely 1MB, possibly 2. > >Bas. > > >-- >AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ > >To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with >the >body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of >your email blank. > > -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
