|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
* Me *
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:13 am Post subject: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
 |
|
I am hoping to receive user's experience with two Sun Blade models.
This is for a fairly critical server application where 7x24 availability is
required.
My first thought is a Sun Blade 150 with an external RAID drive and lots of
ram (of course).
The second (but more expensive) is the Sun Blade 2000, again with an
external RAID drive and lots of ram.
The target OS is Solaris 8.
If the Sun Blade is a reliable box (based upon your experience), then common
sense says not to spend the more than required (the Blade 2000).
Can anyone give me pluses and minuses of going with only the Blade 150
versus the Blade 2000?
And yes, for the developed applications to be run (third party) - these are
the only two choices of hardware.
In advance, thank-you for your opinions and sharing of your experiences |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Torsten Kirschner
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:32 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
* Me * wrote on Sunday 18 January 2004 20:13 :
| Quote: | I am hoping to receive user's experience with two Sun Blade models.
This is for a fairly critical server application where 7x24 availability
is required.
My first thought is a Sun Blade 150 with an external RAID drive and lots
of ram (of course).
|
My first tought is that You do not want to use a workstation as a server,
especially not for a "critical server application where 7x24 availability
is required".
You should use a real server. The equivalent of the Blade 150 would be a
V120, but You really want more than that, like dual power supplies. Instead
of a Blade 2000, use a F280R.
Better yet, use two servers in a cluster and some shared storage like the
3510FC and off You go.
Not that I have any problem with running "fairly critical apps" on single
workstations; we ran such stuff on Ultra 4, 5 and 10s for years. But given
the choice between sleeping well at night but going way over budget and
saving some bucks with my very own desaster recovery plan, I usually have
no problem spending other people's money.-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
* Me *
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:39 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
|
| My first tought is that You do not want to use a workstation as a server,
| especially not for a "critical server application where 7x24 availability
| is required".
|
| You should use a real server. The equivalent of the Blade 150 would be a
| V120, but You really want more than that, like dual power supplies.
Instead
| of a Blade 2000, use a F280R.
| Better yet, use two servers in a cluster and some shared storage like the
| 3510FC and off You go.
|
| Not that I have any problem with running "fairly critical apps" on single
| workstations; we ran such stuff on Ultra 4, 5 and 10s for years. But given
| the choice between sleeping well at night but going way over budget and
| saving some bucks with my very own desaster recovery plan, I usually have
| no problem spending other people's money.-)
|
Thank-you for the suggestions.
Unfortunately, the company that makes the applications (that must run) only
support the applications on the Blade 150 or Blade 2000. They do not
support any other SUN hardware platform ... :-(
So, despite your excellent suggestions, I can not use them. Support for the
software is critical ... so the hardware must be taken from that very small
menu of choices - 150 or 2000.
Would then be a marked difference between reliability between the 150 and
2000 to justify the (quite a bit) of extra dollars?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Teer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:47 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, * Me * wrote:
| Quote: | This is for a fairly critical server application where 7x24 availability is
required.
|
In that case, you want servers, not workstations being used as
servers. Two different markets require two different approaches.
| Quote: | My first thought is a Sun Blade 150 with an external RAID drive and lots of
ram (of course).
|
You don't say how "big" of a server you need, but for a small
server, check out the V240. Multiple hot swappable disks and
dual hot swappable PSUs help the high availability.
| Quote: | The second (but more expensive) is the Sun Blade 2000, again with an
external RAID drive and lots of ram.
|
If you need that kind of horsepower, a V280 or V440 or V480
would probably be a good choice.
As for external RAID: a good idea, but depeding on your needs,
you might be able get away with using internal drives on those
machiens that support more than two internal drives.
| Quote: | Can anyone give me pluses and minuses of going with only the Blade 150
versus the Blade 2000?
|
Depends what you want.
| Quote: | And yes, for the developed applications to be run (third party) - these are
the only two choices of hardware.
|
Nonsense; barring any real HW incompatibilites (very unlikely),
any recent Sun hardware will be capable.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Teer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:50 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, * Me * wrote:
| Quote: | Unfortunately, the company that makes the applications (that must run) only
support the applications on the Blade 150 or Blade 2000. They do not
support any other SUN hardware platform ... :-(
|
That's a red herring. From an application's perspective, the HW
doesn't matter. For example: a V280 uses the same motherboard
as the SB 2000.
| Quote: | So, despite your excellent suggestions, I can not use them. Support for the
software is critical ... so the hardware must be taken from that very small
menu of choices - 150 or 2000.
|
I would go back to your vendor and challenge them. We're not
talking about PeeCees here, where the difference between two
machines can make or break compatibility.
You also need to tell us what sort of CPU and I/O requirements
you have.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:52 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
* Me * <also_atSPAMFREE@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | |
| > Unfortunately, the company that makes the applications (that must run)
only
| > support the applications on the Blade 150 or Blade 2000. They do not
| > support any other SUN hardware platform ... :-(
|
| That's a red herring. From an application's perspective, the HW
| doesn't matter. For example: a V280 uses the same motherboard
| as the SB 2000.
Rich,
I agree ... it is a red herring. However, that is the way it is. It truly
would be nice to get hardware choices but ... unfortunately ... this is not
the case (our hands are tied).
This is for a process control system ... and if you want the control system,
the choices are:
Sun Blade 150 .... or for more dollars, we can sell you a Sun Blade 2000.
Note .... it is not allowed to purchase your own hardware and install their
software on it. That also results in no support (which is not acceptable).
There is no choice or processor. The choices presented are ... how much ram
and what type and style of hard drive. The machine comes preloaded with
their software layered on top of Solaris 8 (which they also load).
So ... back to the original question (sorry) ... given that the Blade 2000
is about twice the hardware cost of a Blade 150 ... which would be the
better solution. Both have sufficient horsepower to run the software (the
IIi for the Blade 150 versus the III for the Blade 2000). The software
actually runs quite well on a UltraSparc 60. However, due to the fact that
they are no longer available, the "new" choices of hardware are - 150 or
2000.
|
I think my response to your vendor's sales droid given the above is something
along the line of "You guys sound like flaming idiots. I think I'll look
elsewhere for a company that has a clue."
| Quote: | Do both these models qualify as workstations? Would the Blade 2000 have
higher availability due to better architecture or is it more expensive due
to the more powerful CPU?
|
Yes, they are both workstations. Given that the application runs on a 150,
and this whole thing is dedicated, I can't think of any reason why you'd
pop the extra money for a 2000 unless you were going to run something else
there also.
The price difference is because the 2000 supports 2 processors, faster
processors, has FC-AL drives instead of IDE, has a SCSI interface, more
PCI slots, has media bays, etc. and is in general a faster, more expandable
machine, not because it is touted as more reliable.
If anything, having more parts would tend to make it less reliable.
| Quote: | Again, I appreciate all answers ... but please ... the hardware choices they
provide (for their software - bundled solution) is either a Blade 150 or a
Blade 2000.
Cheers
|
Perhaps it's time to look for someone to write this control system that
has a clue.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:33 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
| Quote: | My first thought is a Sun Blade 150 with an external RAID drive and lots of
ram (of course).
|
I've read the rest of the thread, and I can see that you're locked into a
choice between the SB150 and the SB2000.
I have an SB150 on my desk that I'm using right now. As a workstation, the
only downside is the pathetic framebuffer performance.
This SB150 blew a CPU (of all parts, the CPU?) within the first six
months. This has happened before and the tech who fixed it knew exactly
what was wrong when I logged the call, which makes me think it might be a
recurring problem. I must note that Sun's turnaround on fixing the problem
was fantastic and that as always, the overall impression I recieved was
one of *** Good Support.
The only way to make the choice is to look at the application's needs. If
it is CPU-bound, the SB2000 is the way to go. If it requires massive
amounts of RAM, you can put more in the SB2000. For disc, the 2000 has
more options available.
However, if the application is reasonably light on CPU, I'd suggest the
SB150 with an external disc array. You might want to slop more memory than
the usual 256Mb in there as well.
Enjoy. If you can get away with it, order a Sunfire V120 instead of the
SB150 - they're smaller, have SCSI disc instead of IDE and
Lights-Out-Management makes 24/7 support a lot easier.
--
Andre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
* Me *
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:53 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
|
| > Unfortunately, the company that makes the applications (that must run)
only
| > support the applications on the Blade 150 or Blade 2000. They do not
| > support any other SUN hardware platform ... :-(
|
| That's a red herring. From an application's perspective, the HW
| doesn't matter. For example: a V280 uses the same motherboard
| as the SB 2000.
Rich,
I agree ... it is a red herring. However, that is the way it is. It truly
would be nice to get hardware choices but ... unfortunately ... this is not
the case (our hands are tied).
This is for a process control system ... and if you want the control system,
the choices are:
Sun Blade 150 .... or for more dollars, we can sell you a Sun Blade 2000.
Note .... it is not allowed to purchase your own hardware and install their
software on it. That also results in no support (which is not acceptable).
There is no choice or processor. The choices presented are ... how much ram
and what type and style of hard drive. The machine comes preloaded with
their software layered on top of Solaris 8 (which they also load).
So ... back to the original question (sorry) ... given that the Blade 2000
is about twice the hardware cost of a Blade 150 ... which would be the
better solution. Both have sufficient horsepower to run the software (the
IIi for the Blade 150 versus the III for the Blade 2000). The software
actually runs quite well on a UltraSparc 60. However, due to the fact that
they are no longer available, the "new" choices of hardware are - 150 or
2000.
Do both these models qualify as workstations? Would the Blade 2000 have
higher availability due to better architecture or is it more expensive due
to the more powerful CPU?
Again, I appreciate all answers ... but please ... the hardware choices they
provide (for their software - bundled solution) is either a Blade 150 or a
Blade 2000.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Teer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:53 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, * Me * wrote:
| Quote: | I agree ... it is a red herring. However, that is the way it is. It truly
would be nice to get hardware choices but ... unfortunately ... this is not
the case (our hands are tied).
|
I understand your situation, but surely there are other vendors?
I'd be seriously temted to tell the vendor that you're not interested,
and look elsewhere.
| Quote: | Note .... it is not allowed to purchase your own hardware and install their
software on it. That also results in no support (which is not acceptable).
There is no choice or processor. The choices presented are ... how much ram
and what type and style of hard drive. The machine comes preloaded with
their software layered on top of Solaris 8 (which they also load).
|
Sould like a nightmare to me...
| Quote: | So ... back to the original question (sorry) ... given that the Blade 2000
is about twice the hardware cost of a Blade 150 ... which would be the
better solution. Both have sufficient horsepower to run the software (the
IIi for the Blade 150 versus the III for the Blade 2000). The software
actually runs quite well on a UltraSparc 60. However, due to the fact that
they are no longer available, the "new" choices of hardware are - 150 or
2000.
|
Right, given that the SB150 is sufficient to meet your needs,
go with that (but only if you fail to convince your vendor that
they're idiots and haven't taken your business elsewhere).
| Quote: | Do both these models qualify as workstations? Would the Blade 2000 have
|
Yes, that's why they're available from www.sun.com/desktop
rather than www.sun.com/servers. :-)
| Quote: | higher availability due to better architecture or is it more expensive due
to the more powerful CPU?
|
The latter, plus a whole host of other stuff that others have
mentioned (FC-AL disks, etc.).
| Quote: | Again, I appreciate all answers ... but please ... the hardware choices they
provide (for their software - bundled solution) is either a Blade 150 or a
Blade 2000.
|
I hear you. Find a more cluefull vendor.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruno Saverio Delbono
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Bruno Saverio Delbono
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:53 am Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
| Quote: | Note .... it is not allowed to purchase your own hardware and install their
software on it. That also results in no support (which is not acceptable).
There is no choice or processor. The choices presented are ... how much ram
and what type and style of hard drive. The machine comes preloaded with
their software layered on top of Solaris 8 (which they also load).
|
That's a bad investment, IMHO. If you're being "forced" like this, you
should really reconsider buying into this app. Don't they have any
competitors?
| Quote: | So ... back to the original question (sorry) ... given that the Blade 2000
is about twice the hardware cost of a Blade 150 ... which would be the
better solution.
|
http://tinyurl.com/2x6jt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
In article <jaCOb.160655$JQ1.72768@pd7tw1no>,
"* Me *" <also_atSPAMFREE@hotmail.com> writes:
| Quote: |
| My first tought is that You do not want to use a workstation as a server,
| especially not for a "critical server application where 7x24 availability
| is required".
| You should use a real server. The equivalent of the Blade 150 would be a
| V120, but You really want more than that, like dual power supplies.
| Instead of a Blade 2000, use a F280R.
Thank-you for the suggestions.
Unfortunately, the company that makes the applications (that must run) only
support the applications on the Blade 150 or Blade 2000. They do not
support any other SUN hardware platform ... :-(
|
Inquiring minds gotta know what "company" that is...
Just for future reference as a place to avoid : >
| Quote: | So, despite your excellent suggestions, I can not use them. Support for the
software is critical ... so the hardware must be taken from that very small
menu of choices - 150 or 2000.
|
Then use a 2000.
| Quote: | Would then be a marked difference between reliability between the 150 and
2000 to justify the (quite a bit) of extra dollars?
|
yes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
Chris Morgan <cm@mihalis.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "* Me *" <also_atSPAMFREE@hotmail.com> writes:
I am hoping to receive user's experience with two Sun Blade models.
Everything I know about the Sun Blade 150 tells me to stay away from
it for an important role.
|
Anything concrete to lead one to believe the MTBF of a 150 is lower
than a 2000?
Since the 2000 is more complex and has more parts, I'd expect it to be
the other way around.
Does anyone know if Sun does MTBF numbers for these systems?
There is no question that the 2000 is faster, more expandable, etc., but
the sole criterion in this situation seems to be MTBF.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Morgan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
"* Me *" <also_atSPAMFREE@hotmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | I am hoping to receive user's experience with two Sun Blade models.
|
Everything I know about the Sun Blade 150 tells me to stay away from
it for an important role.
I've personally run a Blade 1000 for several years now as a research
server as well as my personal workstation. This is 99.9999% the same
as the 2000 just with slower cpus. The OBP on a 2000 that I saw
reported the system as a Sun Blade 1000 even!
I can highly recommend it due to reliability and quality of the
hardware. It has never crashed. Thermal management seems to be very
good (it moves a lot of air and yet isn't "whiny").
There's tool-free access to the insides and SCA disks, so a disk swap
takes 2 minutes or so.
The machine is highly expandable, quiet, takes a lot of ram, and soaks
up load really well. By this I mean as the machine has gotten busier
and busier its response time has never really suffered. We had to
upgrade from 512MB ram to 2GB, and also arranged for a 100Mb full
duplex line to handle the network I/O requirements (which was unusual
for that office and that floor).
Downsides :
- not as fast as you might imagine for single-thread cpu bound
applications.
- puts off a lot of heat when busy (1.2Ghz may be cooler)
- expensive to buy and expensive to expand
Chris
--
Chris Morgan
"Post posting of policy changes by the boss will result in
real rule revisions that are irreversible"
- anonymous correspondent |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Teer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: User's experience with Sun Blades - 150 and 2000 |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
| Quote: | Since the 2000 is more complex and has more parts, I'd expect it to be
the other way around.
|
A fair assumption, assuming the quality of the parts is the
same, which they're not. For example, IDE disks are quite
well known for their relatively short MTBF.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups