| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Web Server Benchmark Heats Up | |
|
||
| Time: 11:03 EST/16:03 GMT | News Source: Ent Mag | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
For about nine months, nothing happened on the Transaction Performance Processing Council's benchmark for transactional Web e-commerce, the TPC-W, in the 10,000-item category. Then in December, within two days of each other IBM Corp. and Dell Computer Corp. both published Windows 2000-based results that greatly increased the raw performance and price-performance on the measure. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 314 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:04:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 1/17/2002 11:15:55 AM |
| Win2K DC has completely slammed all the competition. Not suprisingly, the press has completely dropped the ball on covering this revolution. Any intelligent person can see that this is the beginning of the final death throws for Big-Iron Unix and it's stranglehold on the enterprise market. Win2K is beating the pants off them. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/17/2002 9:15:02 PM |
|
tpc-c benchmarks
IBM P660 Model 6M1 - 105,025 tpmC, 25.33 US$ Price/tpmC Unisys ES7000 - 165,218 tpmC, 21.33 US$ Price/tpmC Just wanted to point out that making claims like "lays waste to any x86-based system of today" is kind of dumb. Besides there is a great deal of advantage to going with a clustered solution than one behemoth box. Lower cost happens to be one of those reasons. Fault tolerance is another. It all depends, but most companies I've seen have been moving away from the one large box solution because it is not flexible and poses to great of a risk. That's not to say there are not uses for it, but Microsoft has correctly attacked a market by scaling horizontally. |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/17/2002 9:32:02 PM |
|
Again, to be fair, it's only recently that horizontally scaling has been cheaper than vertical scaling.
The primary reason for this paradigm shift is the development of excellent management tools, like Active Directory, which allow many different servers to be administered from one central point, and treated as one homogenous environment. Before Active Directory (and the various other tools), a server farm was almost always more expensive to maintain than a single node. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/18/2002 12:27:53 AM |
|
#11 - You didn't say comparable. You just said it could lay waste, and I just had to point out how silly that was.
As far as web servers, that's a very easy horizontally scalable solution, and a half dozen Proliant DL360 servers at $4k/each could lay waste to the big Unix iron which will set you back what $100k or so? You'd be better off throwing the DL360 web servers on the front end and using the P660 for a database server since it's better suited to that task. So there! |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/18/2002 3:18:05 AM |
|
Machine to machine comparisons are meaningless. Price/Performance is what counts.
If I have one big beast of an IBM server, of course it's going to "lay waste" to even many x86 machines. If, however, there is a configuration of x86 machines that beats the big IBM machine and has a lower cost than the single machine by a significant margin (which they often do), then there is no reason to go with big blue. If it's neck and neck, then go with the big blue beast if only because it will require less physical space. :-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 314 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:04:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
