upgrading server

[Lerebours, Jose]

Mark posted:

> 
> > Am I getting this right or it seem that your actual intend 
> is to joke
> > around ... Are you really concerned on downgrade performance if you
> > upgrade from P3 1.4Ghz to "an actual" server with 2 or 4 
> Xeon 3.6Ghz with
> > 2MB RAM?
> 
> He specifically mentioned HD's.
> 

No, I think he specifically mentioned two configs of servers
with 15K SCCI HDs.  I could not simply leave all that is the make
up of the servers out and focus on the HDs alone - Just because
the HDs will do nothing if paired with the wrong "everything else"

> > If filePro chokes on a dual/quad xeon processor server, 
> dump it!  No, not
> > the server, filePro.
> 
> Jose, that was one of the less intelligent comments you've made here.

I guess I've made others - Interesting.  My first reaction to this
comment of yours was "he is spending too much time in the fp-room" and
then a couple others came to mind but, never mind.

> There's nothing inherent about to an SMP system that will 
> cause filePro to
> fail.  Nor is there any limit in filePro that would preclude 
> using it on an
> SMP system.  The only trouble I've ever seen had to do with a 64-bit
> platform with non-stop-clustering (UnixWare 7.1.1 with NSC, 
> specifically)
> where the PID space actually -started- above the normal threshold for
> most 32bit systems, thus causing fork() to think it always 
> failed--which
> was indeed an erroneous assumption.  A recompile with the 
> correct devkit
> fixes things like that.  But that wasn't even an SMP 
> issue--and NSC has
> long since vanished from the UW offerings.
> 
> To make a comment to the effect you did about filePro on SMP 
> systems is
> an egregious display of poor judgment.
> 

Poor judgment is reflected on your response to take me out of
content as you have.  I am referring to "if filePro requires more
resources than those described by Enrique, then dump filePro".  It
was more intended as a punch line (I guess it ended-up punching me
on the face).


> > Nice to learn that filePro is more dependent on HD speed 
> that it is on
> > RAM - I did not know this?  I guess that this should be 
> true for some
> 
> Depends what you do more of--disk I/O or actual opcode processing.
> 
> > We have an old proliant 7000 with 18 HDs & 4 Xeon 500Mhz 
> and 1.0G RAM
> > with an average load of 110 users and the CPUs barely 
> blink.  When we
> > upgraded from a Quad 200Mhz, we found that the speed went 
> up drastically.
> 
> If you already have evidence that it's not a problem, why 
> make the comment
> you did above?  You're making less sense by the second, sir.

Are you doing OK?  Was my posting so deeply personal to you?

Regards;



Jose Lerebours


PS:  Thank you for caring!