FW == Frank Wiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FW I believe I had expressed some problems with Dell in the past, but
FW it really isn't a quality control issue that I have seen. It is more
FW of a Linux support issue. Lately I've been running into problems with
Ditto that experience, but
Vivek Khera wrote:
FW == Frank Wiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FW I believe I had expressed some problems with Dell in the past, but
FW it really isn't a quality control issue that I have seen. It is more
FW of a Linux support issue. Lately I've been running into problems with
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 07:19:37AM -0700, Cott Lang wrote:
Consider Sun's new line of Opterons. They've been around for a couple of
I wouldn't buy a ray of sunshine from Sun in the middle of January at
the north pole, given the customer experience I had with them. They
had consistent failures
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 20:53 -0500, Mike Rylander wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 06:38:50 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's true :) One of the reasons the compaq's are expensive
is they supposedly use a quad board, even for the dual machine.
Which means a different opteron
Consider Sun's new line of Opterons. They've been around for a couple of
years under the Newisys name. I'm using dozens of them for web servers
and PG servers and so far both the v20z and v40z have been excellent
performers with solid reliability. The pricing was also competitive
since Sun is
Cott Lang wrote:
Consider Sun's new line of Opterons. They've been around for a couple of
years under the Newisys name. I'm using dozens of them for web servers
and PG servers and so far both the v20z and v40z have been excellent
performers with solid reliability. The pricing was also competitive
We were originally heading towards an IBM deployment, but the 325 was
all that was available at the time, and it only supported 12GB. Then
when I heard they canceled their rumored quad processor 350, I feared
Intel/AMD politics and IBM dropped from the running. :)
(IBM now has the 326 that
Josh Berkus wrote:
Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least 2nd-tier
vendors for hardware; they won't home-build. For those people, what vendors
do others on this list recommend? What have been your good/bad experiences?
I've had very good experiences with IBM
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:25:03PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I use Supermicro and have liked them. They make motherboards and systems.
Many of their rack-based servers seem to be near-impossible to fit in a rack,
though. :-) (Many of their 4U servers are just desktop cases which you can
turn
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:43:10PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Also, if choice of RAID controller is an option, I'd definitely suggest
3ware. They are cheap, have excellent linux support (including open
source drivers)
The drivers are open source, but the management tools are not. (This is
I've been at companies where we've had good experiences with Penguin
Computing servers.
http://www.penguincomputing.com/
I always evaluate their offerings when considering server purchases or
recommendations.
-tfo
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
Well, I've personally seen IBM's that were slower than Dell's, and
Dell's aren't particularly fast.
I'm currently trying to find a name brand computer that is as fast as
something I could build myself. So far the HP looks like the fastest,
but still not as fast as a machine built from scratch
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:43:10PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Also, if choice of RAID controller is an option, I'd definitely
suggest
3ware. They are cheap, have excellent linux support (including open
source drivers)
The drivers are open source, but the management tools are not.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:24 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
A lot of people have been having a devilish time with Dell hardware lately.
It seems like the quality control just isn't there on the Dell servers.
Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least 2nd-tier
they change some day... Until then, I just see Dell winning more
of the
server market share.
Regards,
Matt
--- Original Message---
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Steven Rosenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/01/2004 4:17PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Alternatives to Dell
Matthew Marlowe wrote:
I just don't think IBM makes it easy for new customers to buy their
equipment and if I went with them, I'd always have the lingering
suspicion that I was paying too much.
I really hope they change some day... Until then, I just see Dell
winning more of the server market
I always say 'If you pay for quality it only hurts once', but then again I
don't equate high price with high quality ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Something to be said for the old saying, 'you get what you pay for.'
---(end of
Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least 2nd-tier
vendors for hardware; they won't home-build. For those people, what vendors
do others on this list recommend? What have been your good/bad experiences?
Well this is almost as bad as vi/emacs ;) but I have had good
Iain wrote:
I always say 'If you pay for quality it only hurts once', but then again
I don't equate high price with high quality ;-)
True, but if you do your research, you'll more likely to get high
quality with high price then you are high quality with low price.
--
Until later, Geoffrey
... Until then, I just see Dell winning more
of the
server market share.
Regards,
Matt
--- Original Message---
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Steven Rosenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/01/2004 4:17PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Alternatives to Dell?
I recommend IBM
Josh Berkus wrote:
Jeff,
I'm curious about the problem's you're seeing with Dell servers since
we're about to buy some 750s, 2850s and 1850s.
The problems I've been dealing with have been on the *650s. They're the ones
you name.
FYI ... the 750s, 1850s and 2850s use Intel chipsets (E7520
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
A lot of people have been having a devilish time with Dell hardware
lately. It seems like the quality control just isn't there on the
Dell servers.
Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least
2nd-tier vendors for hardware; they won't home-build.
Folks,
A lot of people have been having a devilish time with Dell hardware
lately.
It seems like the quality control just isn't there on the Dell
servers.
Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least
2nd-tier
vendors for hardware; they won't home-build. For those
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:24:12 -0800, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
A lot of people have been having a devilish time with Dell hardware lately.
It seems like the quality control just isn't there on the Dell servers.
Which is a shame, because I *still* drool over a rack full of
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:24:12 -0800
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
A lot of people have been having a devilish time with Dell hardware
lately. It seems like the quality control just isn't there on the
Dell servers.
I believe I had expressed some problems with Dell in the
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
A lot of people have been having a devilish time with Dell hardware lately.
It seems like the quality control just isn't there on the Dell servers.
Was the quality ever there with Dell?
Thing is, some companies are required to use 1st-tier or at least 2nd-tier
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 12/1/2004 9:15 PM
To: Matthew Marlowe
Cc: Steven Rosenstein; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Alternatives to Dell?
Go the IBM website, try to find a comparative x86 system
Merlin Moncure wrote:
For the budget or performance minded I'd suggest checking out SWT
servers (http://www.swt.com) ...not sure what tier they fit into but
they can get you into a quad Opteron for under 10k$ US, about half what
you would pay for a comparable HP server (and Dell doesn't even offer
28 matches
Mail list logo
