On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 at 4:24pm, Feizhou wrote >> Do you have any more details on said stability problems (e.g. hardware >> specs, etc)? I've been very impressed with the Woodcrest Xeon tester I've >> got -- in fact, it bests my Opterons in almost every benchmark I throw at >> it, and it's been rock solid. I'm leaning pretty hard in that direction >> for my next cluster upgrade. >> > The information about the US Government throwing the Woodcrest solution out > was 'reported' by the Inquirer. :D Perhaps IBM boxes...they also posted > another interesting bit about Woodcrest and Intel 965 motherboards having > problems with raid5...kind of like how there is bad mixing if you use ext3 + > 3ware in RAID5 mode maybe. I am afraid that is all I can give you on this. Ah, yes, the Inquirer. Is there enough salt in the world? > The Korean portal one can be found below but it is entirely in korean. > > http://www.inews24.com/php/news_view.php?g_menu=020200&g_serial=225735 > > Something about overheating and FB-DIMM problems which was only encountered > after the thing went live. Hrm. Sounds like an implementation problem. > How close to live are your benchmarks? This is what I've got so far <http://www.duke.edu/~jlb17/optxeon.pdf>. Yes, the Xeons have a slight clockspeed advantage, but not near enough to account for the performance increase. The thermal simulation results surprised me -- I really expected the Opterons to fare better there, given how memory intensive they are. Only the heart phantom sim showed better performance on Opteron due to the onboard memory controller. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University