Ten, >Jozef, <There are countless servers out there sitting idle, with occasional hit. A lot of these n-way servers are laboring with insufficient RAM. A lot of them are sitting idle, waiting for the occasional hit.>
That seems to go against what Craig Barrett suggested, that only 5% of the required server capacity to deal with the ever-expanding Internet is currently deployed.
Joe apparently knows of websites or other applications for servers that just don't get hit very often. Maybe some of the dotcoms that have been going out of business would fall into that category. The Yahoos, Ebays, Amazons, as well as the Ciscos, Dells and Intels of the world that do so much on line business are pretty busy in transaction count, on their servers, however.
Interesting point I just thought of in that regard: on the Cisco thread, some of the high tech bears were making a case for weeks, about 2 months or so ago, that all the dotcoms that have been failing would result in a big loss in sales for the Internet infrastructure companies. So, Cisco, and I would guess Sun, EMC, Nortel, etc., should all start to lose sales and their stock prices go way down. Well, those bears were wrong again, at least on the business side. What they failed to take the time to learn is that the Fortune 500, 1000, whatever, companies are the biggest users of the net, by far, and they're falling all over themselves establishing their net presence.
Off the soapbox.
Tony |
