Re: 1 CPU or 2 ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/14/06 22:25, michael wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:55:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>> For a multiuser system, *I* would go for more, slower CPUs. Each
>> process gets more of a CPU that way.
>>
>> Why not an Athlon 64X2 single-socket board, or an Opteron 2xx dual-
>> socket board? They have great memory bandwidth and an excellent SMP
>> design.
>>
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Probably could go for the AMD solution.
> But our company as a standard has picked intel CPU's
> for all servers.
> Not set in stone.
> Most of our other 40 networks/buildings have Intel stuff already anyway.
I can understand and agree with standardizing on a certain vendor
and CPU family, but what's the benefit of standardizing on one CPU
*manufacturer* out of many, when Intel, AMD & Via CPUs all run the
same Windows and Linux binaries?
Other than because Intel has effective salespeople that know how to
delude management?
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFMbvdS9HxQb37XmcRAvpPAKCxiSHwzXTq4bREbVLtxQyIh3MNhQCgxRiZ
8q+wQhzaq2dXS+L1huSiSMI=
=hRmX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: