[rescue] SMP on intel wasteful?

[Bjorn Ramqvist]

David Passmore wrote:
> 
> So, I will give you that for stateless applications like web-serving, PC
> hardware is ideal; if the box fails, throw it away and put in a new one.
> Literally. However, for enterprise applications like critical databases
> which need as close to 100% uptime as possible, you would be foolish to put
> these on PC hardware. Not only are the components substandard (which makes
> it cheap), but there is absolutely no redundancy or fault-recovery
> capabilities built into the system like you'll see in higher-end UNIX boxes
> and mainframes.

I don't want to continue the debate much further, I'm just curious of
the exact "fault-recovery capabilities" you are refering to?
I mean, "fault-recovery" in my sense would mean ECC memory, RAID disks
and redundant powersupplies. All that is fault recoverable components.
Even today there exists RAIM (sort-of RAID for memory) that exists even
in the small 2-CPU Proliant machines.
If you are refering to the Unix-kernel and it's way of handling
processes, it exists in the PeeCee-Unicies also. Even Win2k is
(somewhat) capable of something like process-handling like the modern
Unicies do.
If you are refering to disabling failing CPUs and such, hardware-wise,
we're talking very big systems. Heck, theres not even such support in
smaller middle-sized Unix-systems.

-- 
Vnliga hlsningar/Best Regards
Bjrn Ramqvist, Hgglunds Vehicle AB