RE: Blade Servers
- From: Stephen.Lee@xxxxxxxx
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:08:51 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> So, the "domain" functionality can be very nice, but there are some =
> serious limitations with it.
Well ... OK. So I guess that means not having the functionality at all is
better? Enlighten me. I'm missing something here.
> The 15k needs takes up almost two rack widths across, and two racks deep.
And this is a lot of space?
> All this for a maximum of 106 processors.
> In comparison, you can put 168 Intel processors
Silly me! You have me here. I forgot that it is all about processor count.
Stuff like supporting hardware, processor cache size, communication between
processors and memory, and memory capacity don't really count. But then I'm
one of these people who, long ago, was convinced that DEC and its Alpha
would not succeed because I kept thinking: Yeah, it has this fast processor,
but everything else is crap. And I STILL get stuck in this mode that the
"everything else" part matters too ... A LOT.
> From IBM, the same config lists out at $650k in blades
I see that IBM still sells the multi-CPU servers. Are these intended for
idiots who don't know any better?
> I realize that money may not be an issue, but if you're building out
> lots of small servers, the logic of using a huge Sun server and
> partitioning it escapes me, I'm afraid.
I'm afraid my e-mail client malfunctioned, and the part of the original post
that specified these were to be small servers was lost.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
