From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964975AbWDDCmz (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:42:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964976AbWDDCmz (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:42:55 -0400 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:17592 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964975AbWDDCmz (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:42:55 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: blade servers? Message-Id: <20060404024244.28E9A5F76B@work.bitmover.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:42:44 -0700 (PDT) From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I figured that people here would know. If you were looking for blade servers and you were more interested in cost and heat generation than the most performance, what would you buy? We're looking for 20 x86 cpus. They have to beat ASUS terminators (nice little boxes, if you haven't checked them out you should, about $100 + cpu + mem + disk and they are quiet and run on ~100watt power supplies so they don't generate a lot of heat). So far, the stuff at www.rackmount.com looks pretty good but they are (like everyone else so far as I can tell) focussed on performance. For all of the Unix like platforms, we'd be happy with 2Ghz Athlons (don't need opterons) with 256MB. It's true that for the windows platforms we like 2GB because we use 1GB as a ram disk to get reasonable performance out of @#!! Windows. Thanks in advance, --lm