From: Steve Dossick (sdossick@iPal.com)
Date: Fri Jul 28 2000 - 19:39:14 PDT
Errrp...if I have to buy 2+ NT boxen plus clustering solutions to get
the stability and remote-managability of a single sun box, I know which
one I would choose.
(We chose Suns. The supposed price benefit melts away when you include
managability, plus sun is basically throwing money at small companies
these days. Ask me how much iPal pays for 10 Sun 220Rs with 2 450mhz
procs, 1gb ram, 36gb disk, etc etc leased on a 2 yr plan. I guarantee
you will be surprised -- even Rohit was :).
Damien Morton wrote:
> So what if a machine reboots once in a while, with clustering you just dont
> care - it means a 10% hit on performance until the machine reboots.
> Comparing uptime is like comparing dick size. Nice to have, but easy to
> compensate for.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:44 PM
> > To: FoRK
> > Subject: RE: FW: Kill the RIAA: a protocol
> > > Undoubtedly, NT is more stable than 95/98. Ran NT for dev boxes,
> > > servers up at the office for years; it got better over time, but still
> > never
> > > the uptime I was used to from old SunOS / BSD boxes.
> > Most NT boxes in high-end (> 2,500,000 hits per server per day) I've seen,
> > simply didn't stay up for more than a few days, despite *lot's* of work.
> > Sun boxes, once configured, don't crash nearly as often.
-- Steve Dossick Founder and Chief Architect iPal 310-578-8331 (voice) 310-578-8336 (fax)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 28 2000 - 19:38:38 PDT