On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 10:28:08AM -0600, Dave Schroeder wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2005, at 8:52 PM, email@hidden wrote:
>
> >>Also, a dual 2.3 GHz Xserve G5 configured as above is $3249 ($2724
> >>education and government) - that would be an Xserve Cluster Node,
> >>which is all you need to meet the above specifications.
> >
> >Now you're rigging the comparison so that it is even more of
> >an Apples to oranges (ugh...pun) example. The cluster node Xserve
> >has no externally accessible drive bays, no CD/DVD drive, and no
> >video card....and it's still $500 more expensive. Also, I'm sure
> >HP offers government/educational discounts as well so that's really
> >just a red herring.
>
> No, I'm not rigging anything. This is as close a comparison as you
> can get between the two servers you chose. If your requirement is
> only for 1 80GB drive, you're paying for a lot you don't need in the
> non-Cluster Node Xserve. The Cluster Node does have an externally
> accessible drive bay. All models of Xserve require adding a video
> card if desired, meaning there is no distinction with the Cluster
> Node versus a normal Xserve in this context.
I was simply trying to create (to the extent possible) an Apples to
Apples comparison. Following your line of reasoning, I could have
chosen an HP offering with only one drive bay, no CD/DVD, etc and
the rather large price delta is still present when compared to
the Xserve cluster node. I could have also chosen processors that
are substantially faster since those are available on the PC platform,
but 2.3ghz is as fast as it gets on an Xserve.
> I added the edu/gov price since I am in that realm, and since many on
> this list are.
A lot of people are not in that realm. And all the large vendors
have special government/educational pricing. So that's somewhat
irrelevant to the discussion.
> If all you need the server for is a streaming server, then the Xserve
> Cluster Node is absolutely fine, which is exactly why I included it
> in the previous messages. There is NO reason whatsoever to get the
> non-Cluster Node Xserve. The Cluster Node is also most comparable to
> the HP, as specced.
Fantastic. Now if you could just point me towards a benchmark
comparing one to a similar x86 system running Linux + DSS, that
would be fabulous. That was my original request. I'm not sure
why you're so hung up on the "us vs them" PC vs Apple thing. All
I care about is how well the two different platforms stack up
against one another for a streaming server.
> Further, you're the one who took an article from *one web site* about
> MySQL performance (using flawed methodology, and not exactly related
> to the "task at hand") and concluded that Xserves don't scale under
> heavy load. If true, I guess we and other sites are defying reality.
> Apple might also be interested to hear this next time it serves tens
> of thousands of simultaneous streams for the Macworld Expo keynote.
I used that article as an example because that's the one I read. I
have no idea why you're so touchy about this. It's not my life's work
to know all the articles about the Xserve, but that is one I remembered
reading. Furthermore, I didn't make any conclusions about the Xserve
scalability for streaming servers and posted my original message
precisely to get data on streaming server performance of the Xserve
and a comparably equipped PC running Linux + DSS. The comments posted
about the Xserve's problems were from the article I read and I clearly
labelled that commentary as such.
> >Even though Apple generously hosts this list, I see people discussing
> >other architectures all the time. So....has anyone done this type of
> >direct comparison? That would probably be a very enlightening test
> >since DSS and QTSS share so much code. I'd be curious to see which
> >architecture/OS scales better as a streaming server.
>
> I haven't taken issue with your desire for benchmarks. In fact, we're
> in the process of testing Linux and Solaris on Opteron, Solaris on
> Sparc, Linux and Windows on Intel x86, and Mac OS X Server on PowerPC
> for a similar media service task (albeit not DSS/QTSS). What I have
> taken issue with is an implicit blanket statement that Mac OS X
> Server/Xserve doesn't scale well on the basis of the tired anandtech
> article that has been trotted out all over the place as "proof" that
It's only "implicit" because you're projecting it to be that way. I
only mentioned the article because after reading it, I was concerned.
Remember, I am an Apple customer too.
> case. Granted, Dell is our x86 server platform of choice as well as
> our contract vendor, and I don't have anything against HP, but I'd
> argue that there are more costs to running a particular application
> than just the initial capital expenditure. I'm sure you'll agree.
Certainly, but initial capital cost is important when you scale up
to racks full of systems. I chose HP because I've had better
experience with piles of Compaq/HP systems racked up in datacenters
than I've had with Dell. As far as "other costs" go, I think the
care and feeding of the operating system/applications is probably
similar, regardless of the hardware platform chosen.
> You're saying you don't want it to be a "PC vs. Mac" argument, but
> you're making it that way with the same type of cost comparison that
> people have been making for two decades. If people can't recognize by
I'm "making it that way?" I brought it up because it's relevant,
even though it wasn't the main point of my posting.
> now that there's more to the equation than price, then I don't know
> what else to say. Now, if you're buying 100 machines and Linux on
> Opteron performs famously for this task, then yeah, I'd say you'd
> save a bundle. I'm not saying that Linux and non-Apple platforms are
> never good choices; they often are. But if you're getting a platform
> for *QuickTime Streaming*, I'd also argue that a commercial vendor-
> supported solution for said task (QTSS) might be in order depending
> on the importance of your project. Some might even consider that
> worth extra dollars.
That "vendor support" for applications can get rather expensive as
well. Any large vendor can supply hardware support. However, I
suspect that if you have a hairy issue with streaming quicktime content
in some custom environment, you'll be paying for additional support
whether it's from Apple or some other vendor. OS maintenance is going
to cost you too, whether it's paying Apple, HP, Redhat, Suse, whoever.
So these are not really germain to the original post either.
Lastly, if you'd like to share the results of the comparison you
mention above, I'm sure many people would be grateful.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Streaming-server-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/streaming-server-users/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
