Sun 4/490 or Sparc 2's - Which is better?
Gary Blumenstein
garyb at gaboon.UUCP
Tue Apr 23 12:19:24 AEST 1991
We are faced with the decision on whether to buy a Sun 4/490 server or
get two or three Sparcstation 2's with multiple 1GB SCSI disks.
Right now we use three Sparc 1+'s, one Sparc 2, and a 3/280 as general
purpose servers on our network. It is not our intention for the 4/490
to *completely* replace our other servers, rather we are looking to add
a platform from which we can provide additional disk storage, memory,
and cpu speed to our network. In short, we are looking for a platform
which will allow us to expand into the future and as our needs dictate.
Basically, I was hoping to get some feedback on which configuration would
make the most sense to you and why.
Since there are so many issues that can influence this decision, I'll start
by including a list of pros and cons that I've come up with. Your responses
are welcome even if you don't bother to read any further however, the list
will give you a better idea of what we are trying to accomplish.
If there's enough interest, and the topic hasn't already been beaten to death,
I'll summarize for the net or be glad to email the responses to you. If you
ask me to, I'll keep your correspondence strictly confidential.
One note: We cannot consider another vendor such as Solbourne or Auspex at
this time. Sorry guys :-(
Our Needs:
As previously mentioned, a multi-purpose server platform which provides:
NFS services, NIS, mail, tape, and print hosts, and a sometimes compute
platform for people with PC's and dumb terminals. Pretty much standard
fare distributed Unix shop stuff!
Here are some reasons in favor of using Sparc 2's:
o It seems to me that multiple Sparc 2's would buy us more aggregate compute
power than a single 4/490. While the 4/490 provides greater i/o capacity,
by carefully distributing applications across two or more smaller servers,
the system could be load balanced to keep i/o activity within acceptable
performance bounds.
o For us, complexity of administration is not an issue. We are making
effective use of NIS and the Automounter to distribute resources across
the network.
o Most of our network bandwidth is consumed by NFS traffic (largely estimated
but some benchmarks have been taken with nfswatch and nfsstat). Currently,
our NFS traffic is not very bad at all (thanks to the Automounter) IOPS on
our busiest server is in the neighborhood of 20-30 max.
o One of the big plusses for the 4/490 is the optional Prestoserve board, but
I understand Legato now makes them for the SBus. If NFS traffic increases
measurably, we could add Prestoserve's to the Sparc 2's.
o Sparc 2's are cheaper and can always be relegated to a user's desk when they
become obsolete as servers.
o Cost of SCSI -vs- IPI. Since we'd be paying about 3 times more for
the same number of megabytes, it seems more cost-effective to stick
with relatively cheap SCSI disks. (It seems we're *always* looking
for more space!)
o We do not yet have any *real* performance monitoring statistics to warrant
the absolute need for a high-end compute server.
o I am afraid the 4/490 will turn into an "iron alligator"; eating up
corporate funds to keep it happy. Most peripherals seem
[dis]proportionately more expensive when going to a centralized server.
o Our management expects to replace one of our Sparc 1+ servers after
getting the 4/490. Even though they agree that our goal is not to
totally centralize our operations, I still feel that we will loose some
degree of flexibility by reducing our capacity to distribute computer
resources, and reduce our ability to "cannablize" equipment from other
Sparcs.
Here are some points that favor the 4/490.
o Sun sales is offering us a _substantial_ discount for trading in our old
3/280 server. This lowers the base price of the 490 to the point where
it almost seems like the logical thing to do, if not for any other reason
than to stay current with newer technology. Also, we are afraid that
we will become stuck with the 3/280 when Sun no longer supports it.
o Maintenance on the 4/490 is comparable to the maintenance we pay for
our 3/280.
o There is some chance that we will need an on-line database sometime in the
future (When? Nobody here knows!). It would not be for transaction
processing, but rather the need to access large, finite data sets for
engineering oriented applications. The high (6Mb/sec) transfer rate of the
IPI disks would seem better suited for this application than SCSI.
o We have heard rumors that Sun will be using the 4/490 as it's sole platform
for newer and more advanced computing ie: multiprocessing. If this means
that the 4/490 will be upgradable, it would make good strategic sense for
us to purchase one.
Some additional questions:
Since we are concerned about gaining the most utility from the 4/490, what
would happen if for instance, we had set up the 4/490 as an NFS server
and later on, our users wanted to run simulations on it? Would this
platform provide enough capacity to play multiple roles? Roles that might
otherwise dictate segregating in order to provide acceptable performance?
Summary:
Even though the article may seem biased, I am not terribly concerned which
way we go. For us it seems like a win-win situation. I realize there will
be some trade-offs in either case. What I'm looking for is your opinions,
to see if you agree or disagree with this analysis, or come up with other
questions (or answers) that I failed to consider.
Thank you for your time and attention.
--
Gary Blumenstein United Parcel Service, Research & Development
garyb at gallium.UUCP ...uunet!philabs!crpmks!gallium!garyb
More information about the Comp.unix.admin
mailing list