Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (34316)	8/10/2000 11:22:28 PM
From: paul	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

I guess we will have to let the market decide how "ideal" these configurations are. As far as clustering goes, sure it sounds good on paper - but the avg. # of nodes managed by Oracle Parallel Server is 2 - hardly the "scale-out" scenario we have in mind, and correct me if im wrong but these MS #'s are obtained with different images of the OS - right?. I dont think theres any precedent to the manageability or TCO of these configurations as there are no real world examples - (though im sure Microsoft will fund some)but im game to call them "ideal" too. Surely you cant come to the conclusion that the S80 "outperforms" the E10K bases upon a TPC-C? The # of processors in an E10K absolutely makes real world sense as you can put 4 CPU's on a system board for a physical and logical domain. 16 System boards in 1 E10K gives you well 16 mighty S80's since it seems that they can only compete against Sun's 4 way servers. How does that factor into a TPC-C? Also its fairly obvious that Sun isnt spending a lot of time benchmarking tpc-c's ahead of its USIII introduction so regardless of the E10K underperformance your quick to point out customers dont seem to have a problem buying 500 slow E10K's in the last 3 months to tide them over.