[rescue] Making the network the computer

[Koyote]

questions:

are you pushing enough bits to need a 100MB arbitrated loop? Would an odler used t1 and a pair of d1000's do the job? (there are a lot of possibilities on craoss conecting those with a backup box, etc.)

Would you be ably to run the rest off of single cpu machines like T1s or U160s? If not, do you need 4x800MHZ US3? or do you need 2x300mhz US2? (for example)

Finding a couple Ultra2s, or e250s, etc might be cheaper. You don't get a gold service contract, but you could conceivavbly have *entire* spare machines for less money.



On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 03:03:22PM -0400, David Rouse wrote:
> The NetApp and terminal-server discussions have got me thinking -- hopefully not
> too off-topic -- about making the old Sun logo more of a reality at our shop.
> I'd like to know if what I'm thinking seems to make sense, please ignore me if
> this is too "commercial" a discussion.
> 
> We've got a Ultra 1 running Progress (the commercial software), two Progress
> database packages and a cobol accounting package. On the Ultra 1 is two SCSI
> controllers (the kind with the built-in ethernet) and four unipacks set up as a
> 0+1 DiskSuite RAID. We've got a mix of PCs and Wyse terminals accessing the apps
> (traditional curses type UI).
> 
> We've been thinking about replacing this with a heftier machine, everyone we've
> talked to has been "Sun 280" or Sun "480." I'm sure that would be nice, but I've
> been thinking...
> 
> * Make the very backend a Fiber Channel storage box (we are going to need more
> space than we have on the unipacks, plus we could eventually attach other
> servers to it if we had a Big RAID Box).
> 
> * Place a terminal server in the room where the serial lines are.
> 
> * Get three Sun V120s (one for each software package) connected to the RAID box
> through a FC loop (right terminology?). I understand that we may have trouble if
> the Progress packages cannot be "broken up". Set up each one so that any of them
> can mount all of the partitions and be "the" server, in the event of hardware
> failures. Maybe even have jumpstart set up so we can replace a blade quickly...
> 
> * If this N1 stuff ever becomes a reality we could take advantage of that.
> 
> So -- does any of this make sense? I know the raw CPU speed would be less than a
> Sun 480 with everything inside one box, but would the performance really be
> less? Also, is it likely that this solution would be cheaper than a 480?
> 
> Is there even a sane way to estimate the performance/reliablity tradeoffs (or
> gains)?
> 
> -- 
> David Rouse
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue