[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel

[David Passmore]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 04:22:12PM -0400, Kurt Huhn wrote:

> I'll hand it to you, that's a unique viewpoint.

For folks in charge of large systems who've been forced to make this choice,
it's not really unique.

> Unfortunately, big iron costs way too much money for businesses like
> mine and my employer's.  x86 is a great way where we can afford to have
> a bunch of redundant systems quickly and with relatively few headaches. 
> 
> I'm not saying that I necessarily like the situation, but it's better
> than not being able to afford a infrastructure at all.  When you're
> doing the startup thing, you use what best suits your financial model.

I agree with you. In many ways, 'disposable computing' does make more
financial sense. It works for companies like Google, eBay, and Amazon,
clearly, at least in the short-term. Like I said, I have been forced to make
that choice. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

However, Linux often defeats itself... when I was evaluating Linux for, of
all the mundane things, web server log processing... it choked on very large
logs (winamp.com) due to, among many things, its memory architecture (yay
bounce buffers!). We went with UltraSPARC-III instead. The graphs were
interesting... in terms of records per minute plotted against records
processed, the SPARC architectures leveled off... while the Linux peaked
quickly, and then took a nosedive.

Believe it or not, at AOL, Windows is not an option for internal systems.
Neither was it at @Home. We run Sun, SGI, and HP-UX. However, the Linux
movement is growing rapidly among middle-management trying to meet tighter
budgets.

David