HP and IBM's Take on Web 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.

pelagius

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2007
16
0
18,510
0
No offense but this article is VERY poorly edited. Its almost to the point where its hard to read.

"then IBM can off them." I assume you ment to say the IBM can offer them. There are a lot more mistakes as well...
 
G

Guest

Guest
This article is full of factual errors. The IBM servers aren't "turned sideways". They're simply shallow depth servers in a side by side configuration. They're still cooled front to back like a traditional server. The entire rack's power consumption isn't 100 watts. It's based on configuration and could easily run 25-30kw. And comparable servers don't necessarily draw more power. IBM has simply cloned what Rackable Systems has been doing for the past 8 years. Dell and HP also caught on to the single power supply, non-redundantly configured servers over the past few years. IBM certainly has a nice product but it's not revolutionary.
 
G

Guest

Guest
You might want to remind your readers that Salesforce.com made their switch right after Michael Dell joined their board... their IT folks think Dell's quality is horrible, but they were forced to use them.
 
G

Guest

Guest
It seems that Salesforce.com needs to do some research on blade systems other than Dell. HP and IBM both have very good Blade solutions that are

A. IBM and HP Blade's take less Power & cooling than 14-16 1u servers
B. Most data centers can only get 10 1U servers per rack right now because power is constrained.

Its Salesforce that just blindly buy crappy gear and then justify it by saying well blades don't have the best technology so i will go and waste millions on dell's servers. ( way to help out your biz )

if they would Just say i am to lazy to do any real research and dell buys me lunch so buy hardware from them it would be truthfully and then we would not get to blog about how incorrect his statements are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY