 | |
Holy Crap! FM publishes Server PC vs Server Mac Benchmarks!!!
comp.databases.filemaker comp.databases.filemaker
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Holy Crap! FM publishes Server PC vs Server Mac Benchmarks!!! -
10-16-2005
, 02:02 PM
|
Hmmm... I'm no networking genius, but I'm pretty much almost completely sure that you don't need the 25-pack of Windows® Server 2003 Device CALs (Standard or Enterprise). This would be a valid requirement for users accessing the server with authentication, but this should not at all be necessary for using it as a data server. Remember that users are accessing it through FileMaker Server's TCP/IP connection, not through regular authenticated file-sharing. I've got to imagine this cuts the price significantly. Bill Marriott wrote: I just had to go shopping! Here's a quick-and-dirty quote on the two platforms described in the benchmark at http://filemaker.com/products/fms/benchmark.html (No guarantee I found the cheapest Intel hardware available) PowerMac G5: - Dual 2.3GHz PowerPC G5 - 2GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 4x512 - 250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm - ATI Radeon 9600 w/128MB DDR SDRAM - 16x SuperDrive double-layer (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW) - Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English - Mac OS X - U.S. English - Mac OS X Server (Unlimited-Client) ======= $3,848 [Mac OS X Server with unlimited client accounts for $999 of the Apple price] Dell PowerEdge 1800: - Dual Intel® XeonT processors at 3.6GHz/2MB Cache, 800MHz FSB - Windows® Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, Includes 25 CAL's - 25-pack of Windows® Server 2003 Device CALs (Standard or Enterprise) - 4GB DDR2 400MHz (2X2GB), Dual Ranked DIMMs - Add-in SCSI card RAID 5, with SCSI Backplane, minimum 3 drives required - PERC4eDC-PCI Express, 128MB Cache, 1-Internal 1-External Channel - 36GB 15K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive - 36GB 15K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive - 36GB 15K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive - 48X IDE CD-ROM - Dell Quietkey USB Keyboard & USB 2-button Mouse ======= $10,863 [Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition with 50 CALs accounts for $4140 of the Dell price] Bill "Paul Bruneau" <paul (AT) ethicalpaul (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1129148865.784198.75800 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com... No I didn't miss it. It's BS. Of course the hardware wasn't equivalent, because Apple doesn't have available to it chips that can go as fast as Intel's. The fact is that each system is about as fast as you can get for that platform, so therefore, the fastest PC server blows away the fastest Mac server. I think it is amazing that they published it, especially because for years people have been asking for just such a benchmark from FM, but they have always resisted. I'm guessing they were desperate to show a benefit of Server 8 to those Server 7 owners out there so that FM could make some sales. Then the next question was "but which platform do we show?" I'm not trying to say that Macs suck (it's PCs that suck  --I'm justshocked that they published the benchmark. I am the biggest Mac fan in Michigan, and I'll still run FM Server 8 and as many users as possible on Macs, but facts is facts--FM runs faster on a PC--long suspected, now verified by FM, wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple Computer, Inc. |
#32
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
I almost can't bear to keep this thread going,  but... |
Quote:
|
What about those public facilities which require a token or dime in order to relieve one's self? If I have some digestive issues which require me to return to the throne right after I thought I was done, does that count as a single use, or multiple uses? Should I really have to pay another token for what is essentially a single elimination episode? |
number of patrons elect not to pay for even the first elimination
episode.
Quote:
|
Agreed. But that hinges on the notion that ping is an "insigificant" use of the server. If you can use the threading, event model, memory management, and disk subsystem and still be insignificant - what makes filemaker "significant"? Oh, perhaps the order of magnitude of difference between the amount of processing and resources required for a ping vs. (for example) even a single, simple search in FileMaker. |
relative to the hardware not the OS. I've seen filemaker servers under
light load on a good server hold at <1% cpu load.
On the other hand...your saying MS could require a CAL if they implement
ping badly enough.
Quote:
|
The *result* was the same, the functionality was not. |
that changed is that the guy who ran the odbc export script each day ran
a regular export each day. (And spent an extra minute or two running an
import on the accounting package.)
Quote:
|
Was the accounting companies demand for licenses "reasonable"? No, not for the sneakernet, but the ODBC case depends on how they expressed the licensing. |
Quote:
|
If you own an amusement park and one of the rides breaks down, do you charge the contractors admission to the park so they can fix it? It's unlikely the technician would be "charged" for a CAL to use the system. |
you to order "extra" CALs to cover these sorts of situations, and that
amounts to charging you for them.
Quote:
|
They would either operate at the console of the affected server, or use a machine already credentialed in the organization, or use one of the organization's existing CALs. |
dirt" for him to run diagnostic software from his laptop to perfrom
tests. Those tests often consume CALs. MS to their credit has responded
to this situation somewhat with 'temporary CALs' and the license
clearinghouse will reimburse you for licenses that get inadvertantly
consumed etc but its a big hassle.
Quote:
|
If you have a plumber coming in to fix a toilet at the pentagon, does he need a security clearance? Yes. |
-regards,
Dave
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
mail.to.me (AT) fotograaf (DOT) invalid says... Paul Bruneau wrote: I'm not trying to say that Macs suck (it's PCs that suck --I'm justshocked that they published the benchmark. I am the biggest Mac fan in Michigan, and I'll still run FM Server 8 and as many users as possible on Macs, but facts is facts--FM runs faster on a PC--long suspected, Not only FM As a photographer some years ago I noticed already a big difference to camera capture software either from which brand. PC runs much faster. The ability to capture photos from a camera should be limited by the speed of usb unless your running on very old hardware. Macs and PCs *should* be virtually indistinguishable. If there's a big gap its probably shoddy software. |
afterwards. Not the transport of data from camera to the box.
--
Vr.groet - regards, Léon Obers
Reacties per mail, vervang "invalid" door "cc" in het adres.
Reactions by mail, exchange "invalid" by "cc" within address.
#34
| |||
| |||
|
| 42 wrote: mail.to.me (AT) fotograaf (DOT) invalid says... Paul Bruneau wrote: I'm not trying to say that Macs suck (it's PCs that suck --I'm justshocked that they published the benchmark. I am the biggest Mac fan in Michigan, and I'll still run FM Server 8 and as many users as possible on Macs, but facts is facts--FM runs faster on a PC--long suspected, Not only FM As a photographer some years ago I noticed already a big difference to camera capture software either from which brand. PC runs much faster. The ability to capture photos from a camera should be limited by the speed of usb unless your running on very old hardware. Macs and PCs *should* be virtually indistinguishable. If there's a big gap its probably shoddy software. Sorry, I do mean the post-processing of the "RAW" camera files afterwards. Not the transport of data from camera to the box. |
that Mac's held up very well in the photo-processing / image-
manipulization category?
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
manipulization |
"manipulation"
-cheers,
Dave
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
Comparing the simple GHz numbers of the chips means nothing at all. |
Well, it means _some_ thing. Let's not drink _just_ the kool-aid and
nothing else, eh?
The megahertz myth is not completely myth, and any honest computer user
knows it. Yeah, the depth of the pipeline, yeah yeah yeah I've heard it
before but criminy, 4+ gHz vs what, 2.7?
We've all seen PPC smash intel in Steve's floating point photoshop
speed tests, but in almost every other task, PCs have been serving us
Mac users our lunch for years.
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
Comparing the simple GHz numbers of the chips means nothing at all. Well, it means _some_ thing. Let's not drink _just_ the kool-aid and nothing else, eh? The megahertz myth is not completely myth, and any honest computer user knows it. Yeah, the depth of the pipeline, yeah yeah yeah I've heard it before but criminy, 4+ gHz vs what, 2.7? We've all seen PPC smash intel in Steve's floating point photoshop speed tests, but in almost every other task, PCs have been serving us Mac users our lunch for years. |
The myth and problem is that novices (and fools) try to compare just
the numbers. They see just the numbers in a computer's spec sheet, but
a 2.5GHz PowerPC is a completely different beastie to a 2.5GHz Intel or
AMD chip - despite what those numbers appear to show, the PowerPC chip
is much faster than the Intel or AMD chip.
It's not strictly true (and greatly depends on what you're doing and
other things like BUS speed), but at a VERY VERY rough level a PowerPC
is equivalent to an Intel / AMD chip running twice as fast, ie. a 2GHz
PowerPC G4 is "equal" to a 4GHz Intel P4, not a lowly 2GHz Intel P4.
Comparing across chip types is like comparing apples and lemons (or
Apples and Windows PCs). You can ONLY compare the GHz number of the
SAME chip type, ie. a 2Ghz PowerPC G4 is faster than a 1GHz PowerPC G4,
and a 3GHz Intel P4 is faster than an 1.5GHz Intel P4.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <1129577367.629256.4080 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com>, "Paul Bruneau" <paul (AT) ethicalpaul (DOT) com> wrote: Comparing the simple GHz numbers of the chips means nothing at all. Well, it means _some_ thing. Let's not drink _just_ the kool-aid and nothing else, eh? The megahertz myth is not completely myth, and any honest computer user knows it. Yeah, the depth of the pipeline, yeah yeah yeah I've heard it before but criminy, 4+ gHz vs what, 2.7? We've all seen PPC smash intel in Steve's floating point photoshop speed tests, but in almost every other task, PCs have been serving us Mac users our lunch for years. The "MHz / GHz Myth" *IS* a myth. The myth and problem is that novices (and fools) try to compare just the numbers. They see just the numbers in a computer's spec sheet, but a 2.5GHz PowerPC is a completely different beastie to a 2.5GHz Intel or AMD chip - despite what those numbers appear to show, the PowerPC chip is much faster than the Intel or AMD chip. |
intel or amd chip or an equivalently modern intel or amd chip is
something entirely different.
Quote:
|
It's not strictly true (and greatly depends on what you're doing and other things like BUS speed), but at a VERY VERY rough level a PowerPC is equivalent to an Intel / AMD chip running twice as fast, ie. a 2GHz PowerPC G4 is "equal" to a 4GHz Intel P4, not a lowly 2GHz Intel P4. |
claiming its as fast as 4GHz P4s lacks any benchmark credibility.
Quote:
|
Comparing across chip types is like comparing apples and lemons (or Apples and Windows PCs). You can ONLY compare the GHz number of the SAME chip type, ie. a 2Ghz PowerPC G4 is faster than a 1GHz PowerPC G4, and a 3GHz Intel P4 is faster than an 1.5GHz Intel P4. |
half a dozen different lines, and options within the p4 family. A 3GHz
P4 from 2 years ago year may well run slower than a 2.8GHz P4 from this
year.
P4's represent an entire line of processors cores, front side bus
speeds, cache sizes, voltages, and heat characteristics, and are coupled
with a wide variety of motherboard chipsets/socket types and ram
technologies (RAMBUS vs DRAM vs DDR DRAM) etc.
Tie in some further confusion from the Pentium 4 "M" line which perform
as well or better than many of their desktop p4 counterparts clocked 1-
1.5 GHz faster; its a solid incomprehensible mess.
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <181020050905501351%helpful_harry (AT) nom (DOT) de.plume.com>, helpful_harry (AT) nom (DOT) de.plume.com says... In article <1129577367.629256.4080 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com>, "Paul Bruneau" <paul (AT) ethicalpaul (DOT) com> wrote: Comparing the simple GHz numbers of the chips means nothing at all. Well, it means _some_ thing. Let's not drink _just_ the kool-aid and nothing else, eh? The megahertz myth is not completely myth, and any honest computer user knows it. Yeah, the depth of the pipeline, yeah yeah yeah I've heard it before but criminy, 4+ gHz vs what, 2.7? We've all seen PPC smash intel in Steve's floating point photoshop speed tests, but in almost every other task, PCs have been serving us Mac users our lunch for years. The "MHz / GHz Myth" *IS* a myth. The myth and problem is that novices (and fools) try to compare just the numbers. They see just the numbers in a computer's spec sheet, but a 2.5GHz PowerPC is a completely different beastie to a 2.5GHz Intel or AMD chip - despite what those numbers appear to show, the PowerPC chip is much faster than the Intel or AMD chip. Than an equivalently clocked Intel or AMD chip. An equivalently priced intel or amd chip or an equivalently modern intel or amd chip is something entirely different. It's not strictly true (and greatly depends on what you're doing and other things like BUS speed), but at a VERY VERY rough level a PowerPC is equivalent to an Intel / AMD chip running twice as fast, ie. a 2GHz PowerPC G4 is "equal" to a 4GHz Intel P4, not a lowly 2GHz Intel P4. That's debatable I think. Its faster than a lowly 2GHz P4... but claiming its as fast as 4GHz P4s lacks any benchmark credibility. |
chips it actually becomes more like 1.5 to 1.75 times as fast (again,
only very roughly).
BUT, there's no real way to compare chips at all. Benchmark tests are
not accurate since they by necessity rely on various other factors and
manufacturers "stretch" the truth about their own products. To get a
realistic comparison you'd need to plug each chip into the EXACT same
computer ... even then, the stress on the connectors by the swapping
could affect the result.
Quote:
|
Comparing across chip types is like comparing apples and lemons (or Apples and Windows PCs). You can ONLY compare the GHz number of the SAME chip type, ie. a 2Ghz PowerPC G4 is faster than a 1GHz PowerPC G4, and a 3GHz Intel P4 is faster than an 1.5GHz Intel P4. Even that's not strictly true. There's P4s and there's P4s. There are half a dozen different lines, and options within the p4 family. A 3GHz P4 from 2 years ago year may well run slower than a 2.8GHz P4 from this year. |
various "flavours", so does the "G4" and "G5".
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
4+ gHz vs what, 2.7? |
I use DNETC computing for some years.
my 1,4 G PIV HP was only 10% faster than my 550 Mhz G4 powerbook, and my
bi 450 G4 is better than my 2,2 PIV. The last G4 was somewhat better
than G5 at the same frequency, but my 2x2 G5 as no equivalent in PC bi
proc. It is floating point, and PowerPC are better for that than integer
(more representative of database computing).
--
Philippe Manet
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.