Main menu

SmartFeed by FeedBurner Subscribe to the site feed.


If you find the information here useful, then please consider a small donation, or linking to this site.

Recent Comments

Recent Tweets

  • @thommck Thanks for the feedback - I was surprised by that one myself but it seems to be popular!
  • @mbullock Thanks Malcolm - have to admit one of the other other club members set up the lights but I was quite pleased with the shots!
  • [flickr] My first attempt at studio portraits: http://bit.ly/azkw5G
  • No new integration components for non-XP systems to run on Windows Virtual PC without hardware assistance: see http://bit.ly/bV0sA2
  • Update for Windows Virtual PC without hardware assistance 32-bit http://bit.ly/aiBp2g and 64-bit http://bit.ly/9Yll3p

Calendar

November 2006
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Archive

Sun Fire x64 servers… maybe worth a look?

Written by: Mark Wilson

Sun Microsystems would like me to use their x64 servers for my virtualisation platform (instead of the HP ProLiant DL585s that I’m currently using). Many of our conversations have been covered by a non-disclosure agreement so I can’t write much here, but the details of the current Sun Fire and Sun Blade x64 servers are in the public domain – and they are certainly worth a look.

I’ll need some pretty serious convincing to move away from our 100% HP ProLiant Windows server estate, especially as we use HP Systems Insight Manager for hardware monitoring and have had some issues in the past integrating hardware from other OEMs; however, the Sun servers do look pretty good – especially for anyone in the market for an 8-way server, where the Sun Fire x4600 is particularly impressive – I guess if HP had an equivalent box it would be called the ProLiant DL785. Sun also have 2-way servers (that would be positioned to compete with the HP ProLiant DL365) and a blade enclosure that’s broadly similar to the HP C-class blade enclosure, which I wrote about a few weeks back. Strangely though, there is a gap – with no 4-way equivalent to the HP ProLiant DL585. They all look to be pretty well engineered, with extra NIC capacity (4 ports as standard) as well as all the other features that could be expected on a modern server (management processor, redundant hot swap power supplies, separate airflows for components, etc.) and a service console port (something that administrators of Sun SPARC servers will have been used to for a while now). In fact, if I had any concerns, it would be about the delay in bringing new developments to market – for example the largest serial attached SCSI (SAS) hard disk drives current offered by Sun are 73GB, whereas some competitors have 146GB SAS drives available.

Sun are still a small player in the x86/x64 server space – but they are rapidly increasing their market share (revenue up 48% and market share up 0.7% year on year [source IDC]); however it should also be noted that market-leaders HP also saw modest growth over the same period. I’ll watch Sun’s progress with interest, and who knows, maybe soon I’ll be in a position to specify some Sun servers somewhere.

Comments

1

Comment from Will Hall
Time: Thursday 9 July 2009, 21:50

I have always found Sun hardware to be top notch, I do not really have an experience with HP. Although it is completely different architecture not sure how that would play to visualization needs. nice post.

2

Comment from Mark Wilson
Time: Thursday 9 July 2009, 22:43

@Will – same architecture – these are the x64-based Sun servers (not SPARC) and are directly comparable to HP’s ProLiant range.

Write a comment

Please note the rules for comments and the privacy policy and data protection notice. I'm sorry but, because not everyone sticks to the rules, I've had to implement some spam prevention measures - if you're experiencing difficulties leaving a comment, please let me know.





The following XHTML tags may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>