http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-957226.html
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-966834.html
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...ype=noncluster
They be getting closer.:smoov:
Printable View
I don't know -- going from $4.6 mil to $12 mil for only a 50% increase? That isn't exactly good value...
I can't wait to get a McKinley based box....
The MS box is the 4.6 million one...12 million is large.
right, and the article says that the MS box is nearly as powerful as the UNIX one. But I say look at the price tags, the MS box clearly has more bang for the buck. :)Quote:
Originally posted by clifgriffin
The MS box is the 4.6 million one...12 million is large.
Hmm, I wonder if all those processors make it boot up quicker once it's crashed...
I see what you're saying...wasn't sure before. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by LuxFX
right, and the article says that the MS box is nearly as powerful as the UNIX one. But I say look at the price tags, the MS box clearly has more bang for the buck. :)
SJT...lol. :D
:)
hey SJT, you know what would be awesome, would be if they could isolate a crash to each processor, and then use the other processors' power to get it back up to speed and the whole system never pauses....
wishful thinking, I know...
that's called protective memory space between processes. it exists... but poorly implemented in Win2k/WinXP...Quote:
Originally posted by LuxFX
hey SJT, you know what would be awesome, would be if they could isolate a crash to each processor, and then use the other processors' power to get it back up to speed and the whole system never pauses....
wishful thinking, I know...
How about buying two Unix boxes, thats the same power for $4m less...
except that two of the UNIX boxes would be $24 Million...Quote:
Originally posted by Ed Mack
How about buying two Unix boxes, thats the same power for $4m less...
did you mean two of the windows boxes? That would $9.2 Million for 2x speed (where x is one of the windows boxes) as opposed to $12 Million for one UNIX box that has 1.5x speed
You get 1.5x the speed, and you also get far more reliable security...I think using windows in a high end server system is a bad idea with the near continual flow of security issues.
You're going to see more of it though.
.NET is so innovative..and offers so much, companies will be moving to Windows hosts..that can support PHP, MySQL..and the coveted MS technologies.
Could be wrong, but I think a lot of companies will see the light of .NET soon.
Clif
common run-time libraries/environments are not that new, griffhiggins.
From what I've heard, people will soon be seeing the light through .NET.Quote:
Originally posted by clifgriffin
Could be wrong, but I think a lot of companies will see the light of .NET soon.
don't ask :(
LOL @ starks :D
In general I think *nix developers are moving away from bundling everything in some massive framework like .NET; it's too insecure.
And infact, that's basically what *nix is about, right from the start, lots of little things that do their bit, independant of each other, which you can structure in your own way.
Put things in securely seperate packages, and let them talk to each other; rather than one big clump of stuff which is open to anyone to mess about with by default.
Wouldn't you agree that ASP.net..and the whole .NET platform leave PHP, ASP, JSP in the dust?Quote:
Originally posted by gerbick
common run-time libraries/environments are not that new, griffhiggins.
I mean..I've never used a tool that does so much of the nitty gritty for you..and allows you to do what you want to do..program!
Clif
no, I don't agree. ASP.NET is orders of magnitude slower than PHP.
easy to use? so what.
easy to hack. a lot of my contracts are now moving away from .NET due to security concerns. seriously.
I think .NET Framework SP2 is extremely slow. especially when dealing with XML-DOM objects (using a non-SAX parser method) as well as database read/writes.