From: Peter Arremann <loony at loonybin.org> > *rofl* either you forgot how damned slow a E4500 is or you never > worked with them... There is _nothing_ fast about them (see, I > learned how to use the underscore from you, aren't you happy?)... Dude, compared to modern UltraSPARC III/IV, _yes_ they _are_ slow. But there are a lot of UltraSPARC II options that are still quite viable solutions. > Oh - misquote to omit my acknowledgment of the inadequacy of my > comparison. What was the reason for you leaving off where I said > "compilers aren't a good benchmark"? :-) Are you that desperate to > win an agrument that you have to misquote me to infer that I'm > saying something else? Dude, this is _not_ about "winning an argument." It's about reminding you that "build times" are _not_ a good indictator of _server_ benchmark (please note that I said _server_). I mean, if you want to see one benchmark that Intel has _always_ lost to AMD -- and handily -- build times are it. ;-> > That's why I made the comment that you so nicely cut out :-) > Performance tuning of provisioning apps is another thing I do :-) Working > for a fortune 5 and dealing with the biggest systems that company has can > be fun... Dude, stop with the resume. The problem with pulling credentials is that someone else _always_ has more. Now stop while you _think_ you are "ahead." ;-> > 4TB databases, used by Java and C++ programs, 48way 96GB > ram... that a better example or still too small for you to accept that > I might not just do little things? Once again, I will re-iterate, there are _other_ performance considerations than computational. And even then, "build" times are _not_ very representative of performance in even some computational > An Athlon64 3200+/4GB running on a 3ware controller with mirrored > disks beats an 8way E4500/4GB running a 400GB oracle database... > give the sun box 8GB and the performance is roughly equal... Depends on if you are computationally limited, and also what is your I/O -- let alone the number of sessions you are serving. In raw, unthreaded, linear aspects -- hell yes, the E4500 is a _dog_. > Yes, and one of the limitations on the E4500 is throughput... > A 3510 on a v490 does 61MB/sec - same lun, just connected into the > SUNW,socal of a E4500 IO board does about 20MB/sec... It all depends on how distributed your environment works, as well as the application. I'm not saying an old UltraSPARC II platform is always going to be faster. But man, you are like a single track that thinks there are _no_ other considerations. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org