|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:53 am Post subject: inexpensive sparc desktop |
 |
|
Greetings!
I currently run solaris 10 on an ultra 10, and need better
performance.
For under US$500 on e-bay, do I have a chance of picking up a (second-
hand end-of-life'd) sparc desktop that's gruntier than ultra 10?
I find Sun's prices on new desktops insulting.
Thanks in advance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Doug McIntyre
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:44 am Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
noident@my-deja.com writes:
| Quote: | I currently run solaris 10 on an ultra 10, and need better
performance.
For under US$500 on e-bay, do I have a chance of picking up a (second-
hand end-of-life'd) sparc desktop that's gruntier than ultra 10?
|
You'd probably be looking at a SunBlade 1000 or 2000. The decent ones
aren't quite down to your price range yet, but close. A SunBlade 2000
dual 750MHz is up on eBay for $400, while the dual 900MHz is $550.
| Quote: | I find Sun's prices on new desktops insulting.
|
They market to to their core customers, who are willing to pay that
price for what they need. Not the general public who may want to run Sun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Cusack
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
On 9 May 2007 20:53:22 -0700 noident@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Greetings!
I currently run solaris 10 on an ultra 10, and need better
performance.
|
why not get an x86 box? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Bradshaw
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
On 2007-05-10 04:53:22 +0100, noident@my-deja.com said:
| Quote: | I currently run solaris 10 on an ultra 10, and need better
performance.
|
Unless you need SPARC, an x86 box will get you far more performance and
you can get them *new* for less than that (well, may be not, I dunno
what the dollar is in GBP). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huge
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
On 2007-05-10, Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> wrote:
| Quote: | On 2007-05-10 04:53:22 +0100, noident@my-deja.com said:
I currently run solaris 10 on an ultra 10, and need better
performance.
Unless you need SPARC, an x86 box will get you far more performance and
you can get them *new* for less than that (well, may be not, I dunno
what the dollar is in GBP).
|
It comes on rolls, perforated. Seriously, as near 2:1 as makes any
difference.
(To the OP, my 2 x 450MHz Ultra 60 is OK as a desktop. Not fabulous,
but perfectly tolerable. It's no slower than the Lenovo X60 that my
employers have lumbered me with. I booted up my U10 a couple of weeks
ago to install Sol10 on it before selling it ($20) and I was amazed
how slow it was by comparison with the '60)
--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
or that problem will never be solved by science.
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:34 am Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
| Quote: | why not get an x86 box?
|
1. I need to make sure my C/C++ stuff that I occasionally write
compiles and runs on SPARC
2. I am a sysadmin, mostly contracting here and there, and a few
months ago I was asked by the company I worked for at the time if they
should consider buying some X86 boxes and run Solaris on them. My
answer was - no, for one thing I wouldn't have an idea how to analyse
an x86 crash dump (I had to do that on SPARC, and was successful, even
though I had to re-read "Crash!" for that). I am also under the
impression that x86 is missing some other features present on SPARC,
although I can't say which, I never ran Solaris on x86. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Collins
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
noident@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | why not get an x86 box?
1. I need to make sure my C/C++ stuff that I occasionally write
compiles and runs on SPARC
2. I am a sysadmin, mostly contracting here and there, and a few
months ago I was asked by the company I worked for at the time if they
should consider buying some X86 boxes and run Solaris on them. My
answer was - no, for one thing I wouldn't have an idea how to analyse
an x86 crash dump (I had to do that on SPARC, and was successful, even
though I had to re-read "Crash!" for that). I am also under the
impression that x86 is missing some other features present on SPARC,
although I can't say which, I never ran Solaris on x86.
Not on a desktop or small/medium server it isn't. |
--
Ian Collins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Cusack
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
On 10 May 2007 17:42:30 -0700 noident@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | why not get an x86 box?
1. I need to make sure my C/C++ stuff that I occasionally write
compiles and runs on SPARC
|
"occasionally" probably means your existing sparc box is sufficient
for that kind of testing. but of course you would have to decide
that. just realize that price/performance, especially for
workstations, is far far far better for x86. if you don't need to
*run* software that is only avail on sparc or requires the fancy sparc
gfx cards then almost certainly x86 is a better choice.
'course myself i like sparc even on the desktop for the better
engineered hardware and obp makes it easy to boot different things.
but the performance just isn't there.
| Quote: | 2. I am a sysadmin, mostly contracting here and there, and a few
months ago I was asked by the company I worked for at the time if they
should consider buying some X86 boxes and run Solaris on them. My
answer was - no, for one thing I wouldn't have an idea how to analyse
an x86 crash dump (I had to do that on SPARC, and was successful, even
though I had to re-read "Crash!" for that).
|
that was probably a wrong answer since analysis would be pretty much
the same on x86 and anyway if you really need an answer and actually
want it fixed you'd just send the dump to sun.
| Quote: | I am also under the impression that x86 is missing some other
features present on SPARC, although I can't say which, I never ran
Solaris on x86.
|
not true for features not tied to the hardware.
anyway, unless you're afraid of losing your sparc familiarity i'd go
with x86.
-frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
On May 10, 2:24 am, Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> wrote:
| Quote: | On 2007-05-10 04:53:22 +0100, noid...@my-deja.com said:
I currently run solaris 10 on an ultra 10, and need better
performance.
Unless you need SPARC, an x86 box will get you far more performance and
you can get them *new* for less than that (well, may be not, I dunno
what the dollar is in GBP).
|
Non-sense. A UltraSparc-III at 1.0Ghz performs just as well as the
current generation x86.
If all you do is integer work, ie read email, use OpenOffice then
maybe the x86 will be faster, but doing compiles and floating point
the UltraSparc-III blows past an x86 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
* rpasken@eas.slu.edu:
| Quote: | Unless you need SPARC, an x86 box will get you far more performance and
you can get them *new* for less than that (well, may be not, I dunno
what the dollar is in GBP).
Non-sense. A UltraSparc-III at 1.0Ghz performs just as well as the
current generation x86.
|
Yeah, sure, a 1GHz USIII faster than current x86 processors...
Blade 2000 w. 1.015GHz USIII: 576 SPECint2000/516 SPECint_base2000
775 SPECfp2000/682 SPECfp_base2000
Ultra40 w. Opteron 254: 1848 SPECint2000/1713 SPECint_base2000
2505 SPECfp2000/2212 SPECfp_base2000
Dell Precision w. P4 1.5GHz: 526 SPECint2000/515 SPECint_base2000
564 SPECfp2000/549 SPECfp_base2000
Seems as the USIII is more close to a 2001 Pentium4 than 2007 generation
processors...
Mind you that the Opteron 254 is far from being current generation x86,
and still it's ~3.5x as fast in int and fp. Current processors like Core
2 Duo, intel XEON Woodcrest or AMDs Opteron 2220 are even faster. The
Opteron 2220SE (which is not the fastest Opteron!) does 3545 SPECfp2000
and 2867 SPECfp_base2000. Go figure.
Here are the references:
Sun Blade 1000:
<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q4/cpu2000-20021004-01703.html>
<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q4/cpu2000-20021004-01704.html>
Sun Ultra40:
<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060213-05608.html>
<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060213-05609.html>
Dell Precision 330:
<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2000q4/cpu2000-20001129-00407.html>
<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2001q2/cpu2000-20010507-00628.html>
Sun Ultra40 M2 w. Opteron 2220SE:
<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q4/cpu2000-20061113-08101.html>
| Quote: | If all you do is integer work, ie read email, use OpenOffice then
maybe the x86 will be faster, but doing compiles and floating point
the UltraSparc-III blows past an x86
|
No way. Maybe you should finally get rid of that 486 computer and try
something x86 from this century...
I got a Sun Blade 1000 w. 2x USIII 900MHz when it was current (beginning
of 2002). For most apps the cheap Dell desktop I bought a few month
before with 1.5GHz P4 felt much snappier than the Blade 1000. What
really hurt was that the Blade 1000 did cost ~10x what I paid for the
Dell. fp of course was much faster on the Sun but not that much faster
to justify the price.
So a USIII 1GHz faster than current x86 processors? Only if you smoke
really heavy *** ;-)
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Tim Bradshaw
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: Re: inexpensive sparc desktop |
|
|
On 2007-05-11 14:27:14 +0100, rpasken@eas.slu.edu said:
| Quote: | Non-sense. A UltraSparc-III at 1.0Ghz performs just as well as the
current generation x86.
|
Sorry, that's just not the case. I use platforms such as these every
day (all the machines being Sun kit) and the AMD boxes blow the SPARC
ones away for almost everything.
Of course there are significant places where this is *not* the case:
any kind of serious machine (say 8+ core) for instance. But for
typical desktops, well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thommy M.
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
  |
Index
-> SUN |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups