[CLUE-Talk] Truth stranger than fiction

[Srbraukhof at aol.com]

Jeff & Dave,

I used to work for S&P and I used to know the layout quite well. I am currently running around the country installing the SRS software for Sun. I managed a Linux box running Samba Services for internal data access at S&P.  What I would suggest you do Jeff is get in touch with John Gamble and discuss this with him.  You are right, Dave, if you can manage a Sun box Linux is a snap.  The only diference between the Solaris Boxes and my Linux box when I was with S&P is my Linux box never went DOWN :)

Regards, Scott


e-mail me at either scott.braukhoff at ncr.com or scott.braukhoff at sun.com.

In a message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2001  4:37:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, David Anselmi <anselmi at intradenver.net> writes:

<< Jeff,

I've been thinking about the price/performance ratios of big Sun boxes compared to
little Intel boxes.  1) below is obviously false, 2) is (or should be) irrelevant,
but 3) I don't know about.  I think a good Solaris SA would have no trouble
running a Linux box (what's the most Solaris like distro?), but I would defer to a
SA as to how much trouble it would be.

However, doesn't Solaris run on Intel?  Couldn't you do your clustering with
Solaris as well as Linux?  We share a big Sun box for development at work, but I
would guess that for half the price, one Intel server per developer would give us
better performance.

Does anyone know how to compare an E450 (say) to a group of PCs?  I'd be
interested to do a comparison here.

Dave

Jeffery Cann wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Greetings.
>
> Last year at S&P, we developers proposed a Linux cluster to solve a
> processing problem.  We had a bunch of parallel java processes that the magic
> Sun boxes (4 and 8 way Sun ES servers) could not handle.
>
> So, we took the java processes and ran them on 8 NT developer workstations.
> The piddly 8 NT boxes (mix of P2 and P3 boxes with avg of 128 MB of RAM
> (compared to the 2 GB for the Sun box) trashed the performance of the Sun
> box.  We didn't want a cluster of NT boxes, due to the obvious problems of
> constant reboots, so we suggested Linux.
>
> Being a 'Solaris Shop' (our parent company, McGraw-Hill has a 'strategic
> partnership' with Sun), our proposal was dismissed for the following reasons:
>
> 1.  Linux is not supported. -- i.e., whom would we call when Linux would fail.
> 2.  We have a heavy investment in Solaris
> 3.  We would have to retrain our SAs to Linux
>
> We gave examples of massively parallel Linux clusters (mostly Beowulf) like
> in Sandia National Labs (New Mexico) and still no sway.  Mind you, the ES box
> we run costs over 100K (I don't know how much we pay for 24x7x365 'support')
> and we could have built an 8 node Beowulf cluster on Linux for about 1/4 of
> the price.
>
> Now, I read that Google.com, our favorite internet search engine, uses about
> 8000 RHAT Linux boxes to serve up web pages.  Interesting approach to
> scalability:
>
> http://www.internetweek.com/shared/printableArticle?doc_id=INW20010427S0010
>
> I guess we developers aren't so insane, after all.  Google's use of Linux
> would not have changed the decision at S&P -- there is way too much money
> changing hands between S&P and Sun, but it adds to the legitimacy of Linux as
> an 'enterprize' solution.
>
> Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
>
> Jeff
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAjrqSioACgkQw3/GBQk72kDm0QCgjOSWDAfOOSuyv3Qh1+WImRtH
> j0oAn3LSXiUfKlm+ZQsy6ZlvH8/GPYEt
> =qYg6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk

_______________________________________________
CLUE-Talk mailing list
CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
 >>