[SunHELP] [Q] need SUN server benchmark information compare to other systems?

[Jim Pennino]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:38:47AM -0600, Ben Ricker wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 10:08, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> > I think it's safe to say that a Sun Fire 15K with 106 1.2 GHz processors
> > and half a terabyte of memory will outperform a NT or Linux system...
> 
> Ummm, there is a slight disanalogy here. Certainly there is no
> individual Linux (I will leave aside NT since I have no experties there)
> solution. However, there is Linux clustering which will build a
> comparable throughput of a SunFire 15k with WAY better redundancy and a
> cheap, linear scalability. For the approx. 1 *MILLION* dollars for a Sun
> 15k, you could buy approx 800 Linux servers for a cluster.

I stick by the statement; it is a 1 box to 1 box comparison.

If you want to go to multi-box solutions, Sun has those also. 

> Additionally, Oracle recently announced that they are beefing up support
> fro Linux. See
> http://www.oracle.com/ip/deploy/database/oracle9i/index.html?oracle_linux.html
> for more information.

<satire mode on>
So now maybe it will install on the current RedHat release?
<satire mode off>

The original question was Sun vs NT vs Linux; of course Oracle is available
for all of them.
> 
> 
> > The point here is that neither NT nor Linux really have a high end growth
> > path, while if you outgrow your current Sun machine you just get a "bigger"
> > one and keep all your existing software and applications.
> 
> Again, you seem wholly lacking in knowledge about the Linux platform and
> clustering. The high end growth path is *infinite* with clustering.
> Thrown in blade technology and you can ameliorate space constraints.

No, I just did a simple 1 box to 1 box comparison. Clustering is an
added dimension.

I might add the growth path is not "*infinite*", just big. 
 
> > If your needs are such that you would never outgrow the capabilities of
> > a NT or Linux box, there are still other conciderations such as ease of
> > administration, system stability (can you say blue screen of death?),
> > security, availablity of support for both the hardware and software, etc.
> 
> See the link above: ORacle fully supports ORacle on Redhat. The Linux
> cluster will be vastly cheaper then the SunFire 15k (or any comparable
> Sun hardware). There are no BSODs and Redhat has great support. The
> security is BETTER on Redhat, if you ask me; I have installed both
> platforms. Sun turns on every service known to mankind while Linux takes
> a much better security stance. Throw in the code auditing capabilities
> of Open Source software, and you have an unbeatable combination (see
> Sun's latest foray into Intel based servers).

Most of the above is apples to oranges. 

What does a Sun Fire V100 "cluster" cost compared to a Linux cluster
on industrial strength hardware?

How does a Sun X86 "cluster" compare to Linux on the same hardware?

Anyone that thinks RedHat has great support has never tried to use it.

Can you get a RedHat rep on site within a few hours if that kind of
support is important to you? Who supports the hardware?

There is a lot more to security than what is enabled in inetd on a
default install. This is just a red herring.

Do not the same "code auditing capabilities of Open Source software"
exist if run on Sun, or is this another red herring?

> Ben Ricker
> Wellinx.com
> -- 
> Ben Ricker <bricker at wellinx.com>
> Wellinx.com
> _______________________________________________
> SunHELP maillist  -  SunHELP at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/sunhelp


Yeah, I know, Linux is wonderful, and it may well be the "best" solution
for some problems, but your sales pitch hasn't convinced me it solves
all the problems in the world.

-- 
Jim Pennino