Lamar Owen wrote:
> Now, if you're going to compare the E4500 to Intel hardware, you need to look
> at high-end Proliants and PowerEdges of that time period, not modern Dell
> PowerEdges. Hmmm, there weren't any comparable Intel servers in that time
> period (with the exception of Sequent's Dynix stuff that ran dozens of 66Hz
> 486's and cost a mint).
Actually E4500's are not bad machines. Yes, they are slow compared to
PeeCee's/servers these days, but they are still darn reliable. I had a
couple of E4500's with 8x400 Mhz US-II ( 8 MB Cache), 8 GB RAM connected
to a A5100. They ran reliably and flawlessly (except for replacing the
battery on A5100). They have a lot of resilience to load. We've had load
averages of up to 300-350 on the machine and it didn't break a sweat.
I've had many other machine crumble to this heavy load.
Now only if they were more energy friendly!
Warm Regards,
-Bruno
