[rescue] intel vs. sun- for real

[Patrick Giagnocavo +1.717.201.3366]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 12:55:07PM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On July 19, Fogg, James wrote:
> > >From a personal note:
> > Linux is NOT comparable to Solaris, not even close. Linux on Intel makes the
> > comparison even worse. There are volumes of stuff to be written as to why
> > these things are true, but its all been said here before. I speak from
> > experience. My company runs web services that take up to 8 million hits/hour
> > and we are trying very hard to switch from Solaris/Sun to Linux/Intel and
> > its not easy. Example: our Mapblast Solaris servers hum along at 90% - 95%
> > cpu at peak and work fine+fast. Our Linux/Intel farms need more physical
> > machines for the same load (2 to 1) and we have to keep cpu below 50% or we
> > get in trouble.
> 
>   ...and you're trying to switch?  That seems...counterproductive.

But PCs are faster - can't you tell just by comparing the clock speeds.

PCs are easier to fix - you just toss the mobo/CPU and buy a new one.

Throw away any RAM you have that is more than 2 years old - it won't
work in the new system you just bought.

Sounds more like they need a better software architecture rather than
blaming the OS.  

I do wonder how things would perform with a BSD instead of Linux in
such a case though.

./patrick