SUMMARY: 240 vs 280
From: Roy Erickson (erickson_at_pixelmagicfx.com)
Date: 02/24/04
- Previous message: Karl.Rossing_at_Federated.CA: "e250 72GB drives"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: <sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:41:32 -0800
Thanks to -
Brett Lymn
Jon Hudson
Joe Fletcher
Tim Chipman
Christophe Dupre
Francois Dion
Greg Whynott
Kevin Counts
In addition to the number of PCI slots -
They basically pointed out that the 240 has the Sparc IIIi w/ only 1MB cache
vs the 480 having the Sparc III w/ 8 MB cache.
This should not be a big thing for a Samba/Xinet/NFS file server, as opposed
to it being used for a database server.
One also pointed out that on the 240 the 4 gig ports ride off of two 33 MHz
PCI busses vs on the 480 there is one on a 33MHz and 1 on the 66MHz.
I have seen some performance issues in this area on our 480.
Thanks all,
Roy
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
- Previous message: Karl.Rossing_at_Federated.CA: "e250 72GB drives"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|