Hi Rudedog,
RE: "yes, 10000 servers is a drop in the bucket - a single hosting facility could use that amount in a matter of weeks..."
This could imply there are more than just 10,000 Servers, which was my original point.
RE: my comment was, "I know Linux scales well." and your comment was, "Linux does NOT scale well above 2 processors, NT scales well to 8"
You assumed I meant 'scaling up'. However, there is a big difference between "scaling out" and "scaling up". In fact, this is precisely one of W2k's competitive onslaughts against Sun.
But, back to our Linux discussion, I believe Linux could 'scale out' quite well. And if you think it can't, please tell me why you perceive it cannot (preferably by PM where we could continue this discussion).
Now, the question is: can Linux scale "up" well. I don't know if it can, but I bet it has the possibility to scale up. What in the design of Linux would prevent it from scaling up? Your reply ("Linux does NOT scale up") was from the standpoint of an end-user who has to shop for an existing solution (i.e. "2 processors"). How about from the standpoint of a designer who is looking at an OS from under the hood?
RE: my comment was, "Sounds like CPQ is the Switzerland in hosting? Or, am I missing something?" and your comment was, "you've got it right"
Okay, then why did you say this puts CPQ and Intel in different spaces? This sounded to me like you were saying they're in different competitive spaces, i.e. that CPQ was competing with Intel, which I don't believe they are. Maybe in a distant broad sense Server farms ("renting silicon") could be perceived to compete with CPQ ("buying silicon"), however, if CPQ is resident in Intel's server farms, then even in this broader sense of 'renting silicon', Intel wouldn't be competing with CPQ. And, since Intel likes to play Switzerland when supplying components, why wouldn't they apply this same principle elsewhere?
I really enjoy your posts. Glad you've joined the INTC thread.
Regards,
Amy J |
