Hi,

On 8 Apr 2001, at 10:39, wojtek@3miasto.net wrote:

> 
> still less than such mainframe
> 

If every RM server had a 200W ps you needed 100KW/h per hour 
and approximatly  120KV. Given that older Crays only need about 
70KV and the size of S/390 I would expect they only needed 1/10th 
of 500 RM servers (but I could be wrong, I found no specs at IBM).

You need UPS systems and one or more switches with 500 
ports(!), a lot more space (you needed about 11 42 U/HE racks 
plus 2 or 3 for the UPS and network equippment).

Do not forget a real highend cooling system (my server rack has 
only 1KW PS (2 computers, 2 Raids) + 2 x 2000VA online UPS + 2 
switches + KVM, DSL router and modem and needs out of building 
ventilation).  

Plus all the extras: maybe you want serial consoles, some official 
IPs (or extra highend NAT hardware), some spare/hotswap 
systems, and shurely lots of things I did not think about yet.

> 500*1000 USD=500000USD = price of absolute mainframe minumum

That is the price for the RM servers (netra x1 ?). Add the cost for 
the space (do not forget, 500 netra x1 will be about 5t or 11.000 lb, 
plus the other equippment, you cannot put that everywhere), 
equippment (UPS, networking etc.) cables, CO2 fire extinguishing 
system and so forth. You should get insurance for a S/390 for much 
less. And I do not want to have the power bill ;).

And you will have thousands of cables, connectors, fans, etc. and 
therefore have a much higher risk for failure.

After all, if you calculate the cost in a 5 year frame, the S/390 will 
not be a bargain, but probably cheaper. And the TCO is the 
argument, IBM uses to promote the S/390.

And it is more likely, that IBM will supply CPU modules (hot 
swappable of course), to enhance the performance of the S/390 in 
a later time and even if Sun could deliver 500 CPUs for a lower 
price, you needed to shutdown every system for the upgrade, and it 
probably will take weeks of labour to upgrade all 500!

I defenitely would preferr the netra solution, but the S/390 could be 
the more economical.

mike