From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1067ce,c3fb2e547555e41a X-Google-Attributes: gid1067ce,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3cd3b8571c28b75f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-02 19:18:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc03.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F554F67.8040005@attbi.com> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,alt.os.multics Subject: Re: A Customer's Request For Open Source Software References: <3F4828D9.8050700@attbi.com> <3F4EA616.30607@attbi.com> <3F512BD1.8010402@attbi.com> <3F52AA5F.8080607@attbi.com> <3F53B88E.7040405@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.139.183 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc03 1062555512 24.34.139.183 (Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:18:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:18:32 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:18:33 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42086 alt.os.multics:2010 Date: 2003-09-03T02:18:33+00:00 List-Id: Ludovic Brenta wrote: > In fact, mainframes have had this kind of capability for quite some > time now. And the people who use them take hot-swapped CPUs for > granted. The only reason why they don't convey an image of futurism > is that they still program in COBOL :) Yes, mainframe-class hardware > costs more than commodity PCs, but there are situations where this is > economically sensible because racks upon racks of small independent > computers mean huge sysadmin costs. I have been personally involved > in managing several racks of 32 Linux blade servers and I can tell you > that this kind of approach simply does not scale from a human > perspective. That's why I, and apparently IBM are so enamored of the new (AMD) Opteron-based servers from Newisys (just acquired by SCI-Sanmina). The (dual or quad) processor servers have an additional smaller processor with its own Ethernet port. You can connect all these server processors to a PC (or to several) on sysadmins desks, and they can do all the typical system adminstration type stuff from their desks in addition to the normal remote functions like checking loads--shutdown, restart, kill a particular memory DIMM, boot in an alternate mode for file backup and all that, even run some hardware diagnostics. It doesn't make running an array of servers painless, but it does take away a lot of the pain. And, yes, you can kill one CPU if necessary. You do lose the memory connected to that CPU though. (The RAM in an Opteron system connects directly to the CPU without going through a Northbridge.) -- Robert I. Eachus "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, President of France "As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh