Very Computer

by **John Murtar** » Sat, 07 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Folks,

We are attempting to decide between a 110Mhz SPARC 5,
or a 60 MHz SPARC 10 (Model 61). From what we can see the
specInt numbers are better on the 10, and we expect similar
disk throughput from the two boxes.
We got some quotes, and with 96 Meg of RAM and 2 Gig
of disk the Sparc 5 is $5400, the Sparc 10 is $3600 -- which
seemed almost TOO good a deal.
Comments from anyone with experience on either of these
as a server would be APPRECIATED!
--
John
___________________________________________________________________
John Murtari Software Workshop Inc.

http://www.thebook.com/

by **Paul Egge** » Sat, 07 Jun 1997 04:00:00

> We are attempting to decide between a 110Mhz SPARC 5,
>or a 60 MHz SPARC 10 (Model 61). From what we can see the
>specInt numbers are better on the 10, and we expect similar
>disk throughput from the two boxes.
> We got some quotes, and with 96 Meg of RAM and 2 Gig
>of disk the Sparc 5 is $5400, the Sparc 10 is $3600 -- which
>seemed almost TOO good a deal.

Perhaps that's because you've been quoted too much for the Sparc 5.

The _list_ price for a new Sun SS5, 170 MHz, 32 MB RAM, 2 GB disk, with
TurboGX graphics and 17" monitor, is $4700. The street price is less;
it depends on your discount. You'd need to add memory and throw away
the graphics and monitor of course, but you'd have a machine that's
around twice as specint-fast as that old SS5/110.

Sun no longer sells SS5s in server configurations, but you should be
able to get a new SS5/170 server along the lines that you describe from
Tatung or some other clone vendor for $3000 or so.

by **Jens Elkne** » Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:00:00

> We are attempting to decide between a 110Mhz SPARC 5,
> or a 60 MHz SPARC 10 (Model 61). From what we can see the
> specInt numbers are better on the 10, and we expect similar
> disk throughput from the two boxes.

I thought Model 61 is a 2 CPU SS20, isn't it ? In that case I would
prefer SS20 with 2 CPU's. If it has only 1 CPU, I would take SS5 110
MHz - in our environment they are faster than a 60 MHz modul.

Regards,
Jens.
--
+---[ Jens Elkner ]------[ IRB, Otto-von-Guericke-Universitaet Magdeburg ]-+
| Am Uniplatz 5 |

| 39106 Magdeburg GERMANY http://irb.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~elkner |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

by **Paul Murph** » Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:00:00

> > We are attempting to decide between a 110Mhz SPARC 5,
> > or a 60 MHz SPARC 10 (Model 61). From what we can see the
> > specInt numbers are better on the 10, and we expect similar
> > disk throughput from the two boxes.

> I thought Model 61 is a 2 CPU SS20, isn't it ? In that case I would
> prefer SS20 with 2 CPU's. If it has only 1 CPU, I would take SS5 110
> MHz - in our environment they are faster than a 60 MHz modul.

The Model 61 is a 60MHz processor with 1Mb cache, rather than the model
60, which has no cache. The multi-processor version would be the 612,
i.e. 2x60Mhz each with 1Mb cache.

I wouldn't be completely surprised if the 10 is faster than the 5,
despite the clock speed, as the 10 was the top-of-the-range machine when
it was released, and the 5 was intended as an entry-level machine before
the 4 came out, so there's probably major differences in cache, internal
clock speed, bus speed, etc which would make up for any difference in
clock speed.

The biggest consideration is that the 10 is no longer available new, so
long-term support may be difficult, while the 5 is still in production.
Having said that, there are a lot of second hand 10s available cheaply,
so having a full spare is possible.

Paul.

--
------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Murphy - System and Network Manager
Gemini Research Ltd, 162 Science Park, Cambridge
Phone: 01223 435305 Fax: 01223 435301

by **William A. Yohm** » Sat, 14 Jun 1997 04:00:00

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:57:25 +0100, Paul Murphy

>> > We are attempting to decide between a 110Mhz SPARC 5,
>> > or a 60 MHz SPARC 10 (Model 61). From what we can see the
>> > specInt numbers are better on the 10, and we expect similar
>> > disk throughput from the two boxes.

>> I thought Model 61 is a 2 CPU SS20, isn't it ? In that case I would
>> prefer SS20 with 2 CPU's. If it has only 1 CPU, I would take SS5 110
>> MHz - in our environment they are faster than a 60 MHz modul.

>The Model 61 is a 60MHz processor with 1Mb cache, rather than the model
>60, which has no cache. The multi-processor version would be the 612,
>i.e. 2x60Mhz each with 1Mb cache.

>I wouldn't be completely surprised if the 10 is faster than the 5,
>despite the clock speed, as the 10 was the top-of-the-range machine when
>it was released, and the 5 was intended as an entry-level machine before
>the 4 came out, so there's probably major differences in cache, internal
>clock speed, bus speed, etc which would make up for any difference in
>clock speed.

>The biggest consideration is that the 10 is no longer available new, so
>long-term support may be difficult, while the 5 is still in production.
>Having said that, there are a lot of second hand 10s available cheaply,
>so having a full spare is possible.

I think the main issue would be the amount of memory available for
each machine and do they have other tasks that would be better served
with a fast machine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Yohman - "All opinions expressed belong to someone I don't know"

Very Computer

SPARC 5 vs. SPARC 10 as web server

SPARC 5 vs. SPARC 10 as web server

SPARC 5 vs. SPARC 10 as web server

SPARC 5 vs. SPARC 10 as web server

SPARC 5 vs. SPARC 10 as web server

SPARC 5 vs. SPARC 10 as web server