Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Post by woknes » Mon, 01 May 2000 04:00:00



I am thinking about buying a Sun machine and I am having trouble deciding
what I should get. While I would love to have something like an Ultra 80, I
do not have the budget to buy one. I am willing to spend about $3500 on a
machine and both the Ultra 10 and 30 fit into that budget. Now my question
is what will give me better performance, the 10 or the 30? I want a box that
will last me a long time (about 5-7 years) and will continue to give me good
reliable performance. Performance is the big thing, I want to get the most
out of the money I spend on this box.

Thanks,
Wokness

 
 
 

Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Post by Paul Schmid » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00



> I am thinking about buying a Sun machine and I am having trouble deciding
> what I should get. While I would love to have something like an Ultra 80, I
> do not have the budget to buy one. I am willing to spend about $3500 on a
> machine and both the Ultra 10 and 30 fit into that budget. Now my question
> is what will give me better performance, the 10 or the 30? I want a box that
> will last me a long time (about 5-7 years) and will continue to give me good
> reliable performance. Performance is the big thing, I want to get the most
> out of the money I spend on this box.
> Thanks,
> Wokness

If you are going to mostly use the box as a server and are looking for a
Sun box to hold on to for a long time you might want to spend a little
more and buy an E250. Compare the small configurations for an
Ultra-10($4200) vs an E250($5000), the E250 is a much better value. You
get a machine that is dual-cpu capable(granted another cpu is about
$2000), has 6 drive bays, redundant power supply and built-in RAS
features. The small configuration comes with: 256MB ram, a scsi controller
and one 18GB 10,000 rpm Ultra SCSI drive.

An Ultra-10 small config has only 128MB ram, a *cough* IDE drive and no
support for another cpu and also has the yuckier IIi chip.

Something to consider.

--
Paul Schmidt


 
 
 

Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Post by Drazen Kac » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00



> An Ultra-10 small config has only 128MB ram, a *cough* IDE drive and no
> support for another cpu and also has the yuckier IIi chip.

Why is it yuckier? I thought the difference between US-II and US-IIi is
that US-IIi cannot be used for building SMP systems, but that they are
otherwise identical.

--
 .-.   .-.    I don't work for my employer.
(_  \ /  _)


 
 
 

Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Post by palowod » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00





> > An Ultra-10 small config has only 128MB ram, a *cough* IDE drive and
no
> > support for another cpu and also has the yuckier IIi chip.

> Why is it yuckier? I thought the difference between US-II and US-IIi
is
> that US-IIi cannot be used for building SMP systems, but that they are
> otherwise identical.

I suspect some people may watch the L2 cache size.  But you can
get it with 256k, 512k and 2Meg.  256 is kind of small.

---Bob

--
Bob Palowoda   The Solaris x86 Corner   http://fishbutt.fiver.net

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Post by Paul Schmid » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00




>> An Ultra-10 small config has only 128MB ram, a *cough* IDE drive and no
>> support for another cpu and also has the yuckier IIi chip.
> Why is it yuckier? I thought the difference between US-II and US-IIi is
> that US-IIi cannot be used for building SMP systems, but that they are
> otherwise identical.

There are other differences besides the SMP support. The US-II is capable
of up to 16MB L2 cache, the IIi has a limit of 2MB, and the IIi can only
suport up to 1GB ram. The US-II is .25micron compared to the .35 micron
IIi, has better bandwidth-to-memory and other differences that escape my
memory. For a server, the US-II is the clear winner.

For a small development machine, then a a U5 or U10 is ok but IDE and
Solaris don't mix well unless you get Solaris 8 which has DMA support. So
if you aren't satsified with the IDE performance of your U10 and decide to
get a SCSI disk and adapter later then you'll end up almost paying as much
for the E250 but not have any other benefits the E250 offers.

Just some food for thought, I'm not trying to influence your purchase :)
What will be the main purpose of the machine? If it's mainly for graphics
work then an E250 is probably not the right choice.

--
Paul Schmidt

 
 
 

Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Post by Fredrik Lundho » Tue, 02 May 2000 04:00:00





>> An Ultra-10 small config has only 128MB ram, a *cough* IDE drive and no
>> support for another cpu and also has the yuckier IIi chip.

>Why is it yuckier? I thought the difference between US-II and US-IIi is
>that US-IIi cannot be used for building SMP systems, but that they are
>otherwise identical.

Well, apart from memory bandwith and stuff, the U10 only has a single
accessible 33MHz/32 bit PCI-bus, where the U30 and above has atleast one
66MHz/64bit slot. Sun's newest graphics-card stupidily uses the
PCI-bus opposed the the faster UPA-bus for graphics. So the U10 may be
more obsolete then you think. Also 64bit gigabit ethernet and FC_AL
cards have been around for awhile.
/wfr Fredrik
 
 
 

Ultra 10 VS Ultra 30

Post by woknes » Wed, 03 May 2000 04:00:00


Graphics are really not a big thing for me. So how would say a 440
UltraSPARC II stack up against a 440 UltraSPARC IIi? Would there be a huge
difference? What about a 300 UltraSPARC II against a 440 UltraSPARC IIi?

Thanks,
Wokness




>>> An Ultra-10 small config has only 128MB ram, a *cough* IDE drive and no
>>> support for another cpu and also has the yuckier IIi chip.

>> Why is it yuckier? I thought the difference between US-II and US-IIi is
>> that US-IIi cannot be used for building SMP systems, but that they are
>> otherwise identical.

>There are other differences besides the SMP support. The US-II is capable
>of up to 16MB L2 cache, the IIi has a limit of 2MB, and the IIi can only
>suport up to 1GB ram. The US-II is .25micron compared to the .35 micron
>IIi, has better bandwidth-to-memory and other differences that escape my
>memory. For a server, the US-II is the clear winner.

>For a small development machine, then a a U5 or U10 is ok but IDE and
>Solaris don't mix well unless you get Solaris 8 which has DMA support. So
>if you aren't satsified with the IDE performance of your U10 and decide to
>get a SCSI disk and adapter later then you'll end up almost paying as much
>for the E250 but not have any other benefits the E250 offers.

>Just some food for thought, I'm not trying to influence your purchase :)
>What will be the main purpose of the machine? If it's mainly for graphics
>work then an E250 is probably not the right choice.

>--
>Paul Schmidt


 
 
 

1. Ultra 10 Vs Ultra 30

Whats the difference between these two machines..... Does one have any
overall benefit over the other??
For example, say both had 300Mhz CPU and 256Mb Ram... why would someone
choose one over the other???

I've been to the sun products pages, and they seem compatible with each
other....

Mark

2. root can only log in from console: how to disable this ?

3. cases of Ultra 30, Ultra 60 and Ultra 450 and PC components

4. automounter on Solaris2.3 with FTP's pctcp

5. Jumpstart solaris 10 b69 and solaris 10 b72 on an Ultra 30

6. Installing older version of X

7. Ultra 10 vs Ultra 60

8. WGR614 router act only as an access point? No seperation of WAN and LAN?

9. Using PC Monitor with Ultra 10/30

10. Ultra 5, 10, or 30?

11. Sun Blade 100 or Ultra 5, 10 or 30??????

12. Ultra 10/30 Memory Question

13. upgrade my Ultra 30 from Solaris 9 to Solaris 10