Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons? - Solaris

This is a discussion on Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons? - Solaris ; I've been offered a couple of 3.06 GHz 32-bit Xeon chips with 512 KB cache. Anyone any experience of running Solaris x86 on this sort of setup? I'm just wondering what performance would be like. I was it as a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons?

  1. Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons?

    I've been offered a couple of 3.06 GHz 32-bit Xeon chips with 512 KB cache.

    Anyone any experience of running Solaris x86 on this sort of setup? I'm
    just wondering what performance would be like. I was it as a
    workstation, not a server.


    --
    Dave K MCSE.

    MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

    Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
    It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
    for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

  2. Re: Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons?

    Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    > I've been offered a couple of 3.06 GHz 32-bit Xeon chips with 512 KB cache.
    >
    > Anyone any experience of running Solaris x86 on this sort of setup? I'm
    > just wondering what performance would be like. I was it as a
    > workstation, not a server.
    >

    Same as the couple of V65s I used to use. Works well.


    --
    Ian Collins.

  3. Re: Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons?

    On 18/3/06 7:49, in article 1142711363.172854@drone2-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz,
    "Ian Collins" wrote:

    > Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    >> I've been offered a couple of 3.06 GHz 32-bit Xeon chips with 512 KB cache.
    >>
    >> Anyone any experience of running Solaris x86 on this sort of setup? I'm
    >> just wondering what performance would be like. I was it as a
    >> workstation, not a server.
    >>

    > Same as the couple of V65s I used to use. Works well.


    I'm running a Dell workstation with dual 3.0 GHz Xeons. It works well.

    Cheers,

    Chris


  4. Re: Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons?


    "Chris Ridd" wrote in message
    news:C04217FA.17F290%chrisridd@mac.com...
    > On 18/3/06 7:49, in article 1142711363.172854@drone2-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz,
    > "Ian Collins" wrote:
    >
    > > Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    > >> I've been offered a couple of 3.06 GHz 32-bit Xeon chips with 512 KB

    cache.
    > >>
    > >> Anyone any experience of running Solaris x86 on this sort of setup? I'm
    > >> just wondering what performance would be like. I was it as a
    > >> workstation, not a server.
    > >>

    > > Same as the couple of V65s I used to use. Works well.

    >
    > I'm running a Dell workstation with dual 3.0 GHz Xeons. It works well.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Chris
    >

    I too have installed Solaris 10 on a Dell 530 workstations with two 1.8GHz
    cpus.
    No problems, even sees 4 virutal cpu's when Hyperthreading is turned on.
    The 1.8GHz cpus are socket 603 and the Dell 530 uses RDRAM.



  5. Re: Any experience of Solaris x86 on dual Xeons?

    Chris Ridd wrote:
    > On 18/3/06 7:49, in article 1142711363.172854@drone2-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz,
    > "Ian Collins" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    >>
    >>>I've been offered a couple of 3.06 GHz 32-bit Xeon chips with 512 KB cache.
    >>>
    >>>Anyone any experience of running Solaris x86 on this sort of setup? I'm
    >>>just wondering what performance would be like. I was it as a
    >>>workstation, not a server.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Same as the couple of V65s I used to use. Works well.

    >
    >
    > I'm running a Dell workstation with dual 3.0 GHz Xeons. It works well.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Chris
    >


    Thanks.

    --
    Dave K MCSE.

    MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.

    Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
    It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
    for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

+ Reply to Thread