×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Blade server:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/power-based.html
Fits in:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/chassis/
Basically blades are denser than 1U for packing in the servers, assuming
you have a SAN to attach to.
For typical i5/OS workloads, I'd wager clock will always trump cores.
The jobs generally are sequential in nature. More cores = more
simultaneous jobs, not faster jobs. Overall throughput may be better
with more cores but the users won't be "wowed" unless their batch job
runs faster.
The Quad Core x86 CPUs are compelling. We're smashing 10 to 16 Windows
Server 2003 images per dual-Quad Core using VMWare ESX.
As to who profits, you are correct that Microsoft does as you need a
Windows license per image, not per physical machine. Ignoring the
actual OS prices for a moment, IBM is much nicer in this regard since
you buy the license by the CPU & not the image. I'd also add that even
with the necessity of a Windows license per image, companies still save
a lot of money in that 1 server + VMWare costs a lot less to buy,
install (cost of rack space), power, and cool than 10-16 physical
servers. VMWare adds other benefits like Vmotion to sweeten the pot.
midrange.com
