Re: Enterprise 250 (fwd)

===============================================================================
Robb Kambic                                Unidata Program Center
Software Engineer III                      Univ. Corp for Atmospheric Research
address@hidden             WWW: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/
===============================================================================

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:41:21 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peter Schmid <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Enterprise 250

Robert,

My $0.02.

Your other option is the Ultra-60 line.  They are dual-processing
capable and can handle the same 2GB of memory the E250 can.  For
the 11K of a single 300mhz E250 maching you can get a Ultra 60
with dual 450Mhz processors.

There are other benifits to the E250 since it truely is a server 
vs a workstation Ultra 60.  Those points probably only you can
asses for yourself.  But if cost is the biggest concern then 
the U 60 may be a good avenue.

Our E250 here and SUNYA is a 400Mhz dual and it really cranks!.

HTH,

Pete.
Peter Schmid
Sr. Programmer/Analyst SUNY at Albany 
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Phone:(518)-442-4571
E-Mail:address@hidden


>
>Thanks Tom,
>
>We have a 440Mhz UltraSparc clone (SCSI) that we run LDM/McIDAS/GEMPAK
>decoders plus it serves as a McIDAS/GEMPAK workstation and a web server
>(using CGi scripts) I have come to appreciate it more and more as
>I load more tasks onto it versus our Gateway PII 400 (Solaris x86).
>The load makes the gateway suffer when using it as a workstation.
>I had heard that Sun's really shine when loaded to the max and I see that
>is the case.  Cost is going to be our main concern.  I just don't
>know if I can convince the powers that be that we really need to spend
>>$10,000 when you can get a dual processor Intel for around $6,000.
>Our whole problem is getting money to get upgrades, so my theory
>would be to get something with a long life span and it seems
>to me the Sun's are the way to go.
>
>Thanks,
>Robert Mullenax
>