( ESNUG 381 Item 15 ) ------------------------------------------- [11/08/01]
Subject: ( ESNUG 380 #12 ) But Our SysAdmin Says Suns Are More Reliable!
> Here's my contribution to the growing number of Linux/Sun/IBM synthesis
> benchmarks. Task: synthesize top-level design in IBM cu11, 8,669,551
> cells, 121,179 instances
>
> usertime systime elapsed cpu mem/mhz
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 19757.0u 83.0 sec 5:33:44 Sun Ultra60 2gb/333mhz
> 15514.5u 335.5 sec 4:30:54 IBM rs6000 4gb/400mhz
> 9833.5u 35.2 sec 2:44:32 Intel P3-1000 1gb/1000mhz *
>
> * - we used the Abit vp6 motherboard
>
> Interestingly enough, SUN wants $39,000 for 4 gb of memory on their new
> systems, while 4 gb of ECC Registered DDR can be had for around $2000
> (about $500 for a 1gb DIMM).
>
> - Shannon Hill
> Tenor Networks, Inc. Acton, MA
From: Paul Min <pmin@terayon.com>
Hi John,
I enjoy reading your ESNUG letters. I found it particularly interesting
reading about the Linux benchmark results by various users - Scott Evans,
Shannon Hill, Russ Petersen, et al - in ESNUG 380 #12. Their benchmark
results showed us good reasons to look further. However, it'd would be
great if we can get the overall picture in term of relialibity and support
(both OS and HW) as well as the performance/cost comparison with Unix
workstations. Our SysAdmin says PC hardware is much less reliable compared
to workstations, thus more potential problems when you need the server up
and running months without crashing. Also, OS and HW come from two
different vendors for Linux+PC, whereas OS and HW of workstation come from
a single vendor (e.g. Sun), which makes it a lot easier for SysAdmins to
manage.
- Paul Min
Terayon Communication Systems Santa Clara, CA
|
|
