On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 21:01, Aaron Bartell<aaronbartell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 Right now I have a 3yr old 520 with 2GB memory and 600/30 CPW and for
 *most* things it performs perfectly fine. ÂGiven that fact and given that
 out I am/was planning on getting 4GB memory and will have something like
 4x the CPW (I believe, though I see they didn't include that on this
 quote), I am wondering why the recommendation? ÂAgain, this is *just* a
 developer machine (I am actually limited to just that per the Partnerworld
 ISV lease agreement).

Well, in the end different people have different expectations on performance.

CPW, in my opinion, are an almost useless marketing number. The
problem is that CPW are only for machines with everything maxed out
(memory, disk, etc.). And then there's the problem with IO constrained
workloads.

At least for the model 515 (first unrestricted entry-level model),
there was the 3800 CPW number which was only valid for CPU constrained
workloads, and then the 800 CPW number which was for IO constrained
workloads (the 515 allowed 8 disks at maximum).

That's why i think about the specs of the hardware, instead of
thinking in CPW. Unfortunately, IBM doesn't publish benchmarks of the
1 core machines running IBM i, making comparison difficult.
(http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/520/perfdata.html)

Currently, a decent laptop ships with a 7.2kRPM SATA drive, 2 cores at
2-3 Ghz and 4GB of RAM.

Of course, a server should offer a lot more than that - the single
core makes the machine rather laggy when multiple people are accessing
it, running CPU intensive workloads (like WebQuery, which you
ordered!). A server should have a lot of RAM compared to a client, and
better IO performance.

Now i'm rambling about IBM's pricing again, which isn't really what i
wanted to. So i'll leave it at that.

I've deployed quite a few 1 Core Power 6 machines with 4GB of memory
and just two arms. They're awfully slow, and i wouldn't want to work
on them on a daily basis. i5/OS eats memory for breakfast, and the
base OS requires quite a lot of IO just for it's housekeeping.

 So as you can see I am not necessarily in need of more horsepower but
 instead just a second up-to-date machine.

Well, in the end it's you who has to work on the machine and not me. I
find the performance in machines configured as yours absolutely dismal
compared to my laptop. I remember doing benchmarks of DB2 on my laptop
against a 520 (600CPW) with 1GB of RAM and two 36GB disks drive. Guess
who won :)


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2021 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.