Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

>Arno Wagner wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but that is BS. Itanium is mostly dead technology and not
>> really developed anymore. It is also massively over-priced. Xeons are
>> sort of not-quite 64 bit CPUs, that have the main characteristic of
>> being Intel and expensive.
>
>You need to catch up with the times. You are correct about the original
>Itaniums being dogs, but I'm talking about the new Itanium2 processors,
>which are also 64-bit. As for Intel being expensive, you get what you pay
>for. The new Itanium2 sytems are SWEEEEEEET!

Ignore the troll, too stupid to understand what Arno meant by "dead
technology".

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:53:12 GMT, Curious George wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:48:01 -0500, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" >@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>lmanna@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Which of the two following architectures would you choose for a
>>> high-perf NFS server in a cluster env. Most of our data ( 80% ) is
>>> small ( < 64 kb ) files. Reads and Writes are similar and mostly
>>> random in nature:
>>
>>I wouldn't use either one of them since your major flaw would be using an
>>Opteron when you should only be using Xeon or Itanium2 processors. Now, if
>>you are just putting an MP3 server in the basement of your home for
>>light-duty work you can squeak by with the Opterons. As for the drives, I
>>would only use SCSI in the system you mention.
>
>Rita,
>
>You've got to be the most predictable poster on usenet. Many of us
>would choke if you ever made different points, or sold Intel & scsi
>based machines without trolling.

Not just predictable but wrong. For truly badass NFS performance that
is non-appliance Solaris is the way to go, Solaris on Sparc that is.
But maybe that was the OP's other option besides Opteron? Dunno.

Also, Opteron kicks the crap out of Itanium and Xeon in compute
applications. That's one of the reasons AMD managed to grab so much
more market share than they previously had. The other issue being
Intel stupidly made Itanium non-32bit compatible.

~F

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:39:45 GMT, Faeandar
wrote:

>>>I wouldn't use either one of them since your major flaw would be using an
>>>Opteron when you should only be using Xeon or Itanium2 processors. Now, if
>>>you are just putting an MP3 server in the basement of your home for
>>>light-duty work you can squeak by with the Opterons. As for the drives, I
>>>would only use SCSI in the system you mention.
>>
>>Rita,
>>
>>You've got to be the most predictable poster on usenet. Many of us
>>would choke if you ever made different points, or sold Intel & scsi
>>based machines without trolling.
>
>Not just predictable but wrong. For truly badass NFS performance that
>is non-appliance Solaris is the way to go, Solaris on Sparc that is.
>But maybe that was the OP's other option besides Opteron? Dunno.
>
>Also, Opteron kicks the crap out of Itanium and Xeon in compute
>applications. That's one of the reasons AMD managed to grab so much
>more market share than they previously had. The other issue being
>Intel stupidly made Itanium non-32bit compatible.
>
>~F

If the OP wants Opterons, he could also check out some "cheap gaming
systems" like these
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/#AMD-Opteron