[geeks] Big Blue Smoke

[Eric Dittman]

> >> thats still BS.
> 
> just for recap. because it still is.

Your opinion,  Not the opinion of many others.

> > I didn't say 1000 servers, I said thousands of servers.  At
> > least 40,000 (on the low side).  All with dynamically
> > adjustable CPU, memory, and I/O.
> 
> uh-huh. 40,000 web servers? exactly how much traffic are you pushing 
> here? page counts? byte counts? i dont believe for a femtosecond that 
> bang:buck netras dont whup your mainframes ass.

I guess you aren't thinking big enough.  I also guess you
don't understand mainframe architecture and how they
operate, since you can't seem to understand the benefits
you get when you use one with server consolidation.

> > The bandwidth isn't just out to the Internet.  There's also
> > data being transferred on the intranet, including data to
> > and and from database servers.  I also don't want to limit
> 
> lets do some basic multiplication. 2 nics times 208 netras times 100T 
> times 50% = 208,000 mbit. with proper switches and routers, you can do 
> better than 50% efficiency on your network. so with a combined 
> throughput in the area of *FIFTY* t3's, the netras are still putting the 
> z...whateverthehellitsnamewas to shame.

And you still can only through the power of one Netra at the
server without doing serious changes to your code if you need
more CPU or I/O on the fly.

> at this kind of throughput, your biggest concern is not going to be your 
> network bandwidth (assuming youve got your 208gbit pipe - feh!), but 
> your disk bandwidth. because youre not going to have each netra mirror 
> the disk, and youre not going to have enough disk io to talk to your 
> 40,000 servers. in fact, lets do some more math. you wanted a gbic on 
> each netra, eh? so you mean you want to push 208gbit. (never mind netras 
> cant do gbit, bear with me...) provided i did my math right on my 
> calculator here, thats 26gbyte/s of bandwidth. i see youve purchased 
> yourself that new cray solid state storage thingy. even at 50% 
> efficiency, thats better than your average DDR ram. by a lot.

I really think you ought to look at the z800 technical specs.  You
really out to try to understand the server consolidation market,
which you don't.

> > I didn't say a z800 was good for every application, I was
> > refuting Sun's claims that a z800 was not any good for any
> > application.  For a low-volume place such as your $job, Netras
> 
> so whats all this rubbish about using it for web serving? bah. you want 
> a good task for a z800, put a billion row database on top of it that 
> needs 400,000 concurrent connections. _that_ is a job for a database.

It make a good centralized web server for large applications,
whether you believe it or not.  I'm obviously not going to
change your mind, so continuing to try to make you understand
how mainframes operate would be a waste of time.

> > are the way to go.  For IT outsourcing and high-volume places
> > (multiple T3 and up), the z800 is a win.
> 
> not for web serving :p

I guess you just don't think big.  Just because the z800
isn't good for *YOUR* operation doesn't meant it isn't
good for any.

Like I said before, read the z800 technical documentation.
Also read some case studies on server consolidation.
-- 
Eric Dittman
dittman at dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/