Rack Mount Servers

[pll at lanminds.com]

In a message dated: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:57:31 EDT
kurth at usaexpress.net said:

>We're in the same situation.  We've decided to stop screwing around with
>the x86 platform and move to Sun equipment.  Machines built from the ground
>up to be servers....no suped up desktop parts here!
>
>Sure the cost is up there, but look at the bright side, the run Linux, and
>in sales you can say something like - "While other ISP's use souped up
>desktop parts to build servers, USAExpress.net uses only the best....SUN" :-)

Well, if you really wanted to use the best, I don't agree that Sun is 
it.  IMO, they're hardware, though at one time very good, has 
drastically gone down hill in the last few years.   If you need 
serious 64bit computing, Alpha is still way ahead of UltraSparc.
If you want rock solid manufacturing and engineering, then HP is, 
IMO, far better than Sun.  With Sun, you're paying for name and 
marketshare, not quality.  Kinda like Cisco and Microsoft.

>I'm just tired of the limits of the x86 line....640k,8gb.....why don't manf
>take into account that just because a 10Tb drive dosen't exist today, one
>will exist with 6 or 8 months...and plan.....no, that's too simple....

There are limitation to the x86 architecture, and I'll be the first 
to admit and agree that it's not that great, however, in the very 
recent past, a lot of things have come together to bring us the 
flexibility of those things we've always appreciated about the 
proprietary UNIX hardware vendors.  With PXE, though not as good as an
EEPROM, you can get the same end-results of over-the-net booting and 
installation.  As far as bang/$, IMO, you can't go wrong with HP's 
x86-based rackmount servers running Linux.  They're rock solid, and a 
lot cheaper than any Sun system.
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!