Posts by Phil

Sun and Fujitsu ride Unix boxes to four-core country

Ashlee-Do you have an axe to grind with Sun?

Its interesting to see how you give praise and glory to IBM and its Power6 "monster" I believe you called it, but don't give any justice to the Sun SPARC product line and especially the M-Series. Any biases here?

Sure, the M-Series is not ROCK based, and yes, the world will have to wait till next year to see ROCK, but the M-Series appears to be the current leaders in server performance across a wide range of benchmarks, even beating IBM's Power6 Monster! And when will IBM or Itanium release quad core??

Why haven't you talked about these new benchmarks? Why haven't you questioned IBM on why it took them a year to rollout the Power6 product line? Why has IBM slipped Power6 by 2 years when you look at their 2004 roadmaps showing 2006?

Solaris has maintained #1 Unix marketshare for over a decade. Solaris is now running on the widest range of platforms on the planet. Can't say that for AIX or HP-UX.

Salesforce.com pulls plug on Sun's flagship Unix servers

Will be interesting to see how long Salesforce runs on Dell

It will be interesting to see in a few years time if Salesforce.com is still running on Dell. May times, companies make these drastic changes for the wrong (political) reasons and after a few re-orgs and execs changing seats, architectural designs come around a full 360 degrees. Migrating off Solaris and big SunFire systems is not a cheap task regardless of which systems they move too. But the bigger question, is will these new boxes survive the onslaught of new compute demands? This just sounds like a bandaid approach waiting to be peeled off at the next slip.

IBM's Power6 slaughters world+HP in transaction cranking

TPC-C is an outdated 16 year old benchmark - wheres TPC-E results?

TPC-C was developed and introduced back in 1992, before the internet even took form and SMP systems was in its infancy. It is now EOLed and replaced with TPC-E. Why is it that companies like IBM and HP still run this benchmark when it doesn't represent any real workload today? 4TB of RAM is what got IBM these results. Not 5GHz CPUs. When larger dimm sizes come out, you can bet that the new TPC-C scores will come out.

So why brag about leading a 16 year benchmark? This does customers no service. If IBM wants bragging rights, then publish benchmarks that are relevant to the high end SMP community. Benchmarks like TPC-E (no 595 results), TPC-H (no 595 results) would show who really is king. Otherwise, its just Benchmarketing at its best. All those basing purchasing decisions on TPC-C are just fools.