* Posts by Matt Bryant the 3rd.

3 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Oct 2008

Sun, Fujitsu launches entry quad-core Sparc box

Matt Bryant the 3rd.
Pirate

Re: RE: Re: RE: Oh bugger....

Hi Salesboy,

"256 cores in the Sun (sorry, I meant FSC) system, compared to 128 cores in the Superdome"

Er, perhaps thats because Itanium has only managed to get to a dual core model. Why the hell would Sun benchmark dual core Sparc64's when they are selling quad core Sparc64vii that can have 256 cores in a 64 socket frame. Itanium can only hold 128 cores in a 64 socket frame, your problem (or HP's it would seem). Sorry it beat your beloved.

If/when quad core Tukwilla comes out do you not wonder that the Sparc64 might be onto 8 cores, hell, 16core Rock CPU's could be out before then, there still scheduled. Quad core Itanic's, 16 core Rock, this could be a call to Hollywood for a new film :

"Itanic 2, sunk by Rock instead of Icebergs". I want the lead role!

Anyway, onwards : "Xeon can already scale to more than Niagara"

Come on Matt, show me the love, I'm begging!!! Lets do some link exchanging again shall we? OK, here goes mine again : http://blogs.sun.com/mrbenchmark/

Like before, yes, this is a slower frequency than the latest but look at the curves HP boy, 8 threads and BOOM!! Bye bye Itanium performance.

Isn't this what led you in the first place to state T2's were faster than Xeons?

Go on Matt, do it again, show me the love....

Matt Bryant the 3rd.
IT Angle

Oh bugger....

ZzzzZzzz.... Zzzzz.... Oh bugger, I just woke up at my desk, Matt sent me to sleep again.

okeedokee Mr Sales dude, come and give us the loving again, you made us feel a bit shiny & special before when you DID admit Xeons had less performance than T2's, come on, do it again!! Do you want the link to the page to show you the loving?

I want that friday feeling Matt, even if the ackowledgment is a weeny one. Show us the love!

As for real benchmarks, you failed to respond to someones post which stated your desired format, ie: TPC or "real" benchmarks (and other posts cited Java benchmarks, hmm, Java seems a real common thing so I assume specjb is valid as well? :

"Why only point at T2+? The comment was that HP is losing the performance battle with the poor choice of Itanic... Let's look at the SAP benchmark, where the Sun M9000 had 39100 users compared to HP SuperDomes 30000 users. The M9000 had 196570 SAPS, while the SuperDome only had 152530.

How about SPECfp2006 where Sun demonstrated a score of 28.8 SPECfp2006 (25.5base)... HP can't even beat Sun's base number...

There are too many records to enumerate here. You can find them yourself. TPC-C is a joke, and TPC-H is only slightly less so. Even HP doesn't use TPC-C anymore (though IBM keeps chugging along on this joke of a benchmark). However, let's look at those TPC-C numbers, shall we? Sun's 1000GB result is 118,573 qphh, which HP's result is only 69,999. Quite a difference..."

OK, onwards Matty boy., 3rd poin. Erm, I was answering your apparent earlier concern we wouldn't be able to differerentiate you, (add memory loss to bias, hmm, Bryant profile now updated).

And finally the 4th piece of trolling dribble, did you stop to consider that perhaps all the people using Solaris are doing it because it works and it has a lot of vendor support and until recently was Oracle's favoured platform (until Oracle turned into MIcroshite and want to own the world, including OS, middleware layers + the core database at the backend)

Bugger, I really am feeding the trolls today!

Matt Bryant the 3rd.
Pirate

A limited grasp on reality?

A limited grasp on reality huh HP Boy? :-) Pott, kettle, black, lets disect shall we?

Post from you, above : this looks like one of Sun's smarter decisions as Niagara just doesn't cut the mustard

Post from you, a few weeks ago : We did look at replacing the Xeon front end webservers with T2 kit due to performance gains.

OK, the second sentence is ad'libbed a bit to take out your usual HP marketing FUD/ anti-Sun dribble but you get the idea. I'm enjoying the fact it must actually pain you to have publicly admitted T2's have more performance than Xeons! Matt, your slipping...

To demonstrate, I've posted links on here for Xeon vs T2 performance, you must have seen them. Someone else posted links to "real benchmarks" which Oracle felt were real enough & showing T2 kit has the record for siebel transactions and so forth.

So who really has the limited grasp of reality? The person above who spotted how to mimic you or the person the with the poisin pen promoting HP cr@p all the time?

We can always spot you Matt so worry not, you generally go : "Take off your blindfold sunshiners and see your Ultraspanked CPU set is all doom doom doom but HP is so great, great great, ah, sh!t, someone made a valid point that undermines me! Superdumb might be dead, Itanic is going down! Might be dead soon!! No matter, I'll write a three page essay disparaging them with so much FUD that everyone dies of boredom in their seats before they can offer a response & I'll have the last comment! Yey!"

And to set the record straight IBM are offering reliable fast servers but at a price and not many people like AIX. I personally don't, it's never seemed user friendly once past the SVR3/4 stuff and into AIX specifics.