What Do You Look For in a Big Iron Review? 262
ValourX writes "We're starting to write more reviews of enterprise-class hardware and software and although we've done pretty well with our reviews, the high-end products are a lot trickier when it comes to testing and evaluation. Obviously it is not possible to build an enterprise-grade 'your neck is on the line' production environment just for writing reviews, but maybe we can do something smaller, just for testing purposes. What do you as an IT professional want to read in a review for a server OS or a high-speed switch, or a big iron server or proprietary workstation? What tests should we run? What results and feature comparisons are going to be most meaningful to you?"
Not Speed (Score:5, Informative)
Speed (which a lot of people put there Big Irons to the test) is really not that important of a detail. A PC with a 3 Ghz Processor will out perform a Sun Fire15k with multiple processors, for any single task. But when it starts handling load the Sun Fire will handle it better then the PC. When companies decide to buy the Big Iron they want it to be an investment that can last them at least 3-4 years preferably 4-10 years. And all they need to do is add stuff to it so that it scales with the time.
Fool-proof uptime (Score:3, Informative)
Large SMP systems (Score:3, Informative)
Large scale SMP systems require a slightly different mentallity than PC systems, as anyone who has managed a P690 or E10k will attest. You expect performance, you expect reliablity, you expect service, and for what you pay you better get it!
Re:Most important feature (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not Speed (Score:1, Informative)
Ashat, if you have ever done any real or psudeo simulation you wouldn't have said that. The 3 ghz system will outperform any (yes I said any) 3 by 1 ghz system. You have to factor in things like bus transfering information from one cpu to the other. Unless your bus is runing at 1+ghz even then a cpu has to divy up the work. So to complete debut your post, all simulation and real world expreinces I have witnessed shows that a single cpu of a given speed is faster than a multiples cpu that add up to the single cpu speed.
FMEA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not Speed (Score:4, Informative)
Or rather maybe the problem is that it's actually not that black and white a problem. It depends on what you are running for software.
If you're running a single processor intensive app that isn't threaded, the faster single processor machine will win out, hands down.
If you're running multiple apps, and/or apps that are threaded properly, than the multiproc should be able to at _least_ keep up with single proc machine.
I develop on a 2x800mhz PIII I've had now for over 3 years. The computers we've been buying recently for new guys are P4 ~3ghz. We also have older quad rack mount web servers we use for our external sites, and newer internal single proc machines running much faster single procs. Hands down, without a doubt, in this application the multiproc machines _kill_ the newer ones when under load.