In my first summary, I decided not to post the somewhat longish complete list.
But now I have received numerous requests for it--seemingly the information is
of interest to enough people to warrant it.
-- Michael Steinbrunn, Lehrstuhl f|r Informatik III, LuFG Prof. Kemper Rheinisch-Westfdlische Technische Hochschule Aachen Ahornstra_e 55, W-5100 Aachen, Deutschland Tel.: (+49-241) 80-21340, Fax: (+49-241) 80-21349 E-Mail: steinbrunn@informatik.rwth-aachen.de=============================================================================== From: Claus Assmann <ca@idefix.informatik.uni-kiel.dbp.de> Message-Id: <9210071617.AA28452@idefix.informatik.uni-kiel.dbp.de> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
(deutsch ok ?)
[Frage war: Server: 6xx notwendig oder SS10 ausreichend ?]
Hallo !
Tja, die Frage stellen wir uns auch des oefteren :-)
a) Wir brauchen eine VME-Bus Maschine fuer div. VME-Bus Karten (Transputer-Anschluss u.ae.). b) Bevor es die SS10's gab, brauchte man einen 'richtigen' Server, da die Dinger weitaus groesser ausbaubar sind und z.B. auch mehr Kontexte in HW unterstuetzen als SPARC 1 (oder 2).
Meine persoenliche Meinung ist, dass eine SS10/52 (oder 54) mit etwas Aufruestung (PrestoServ, mehr Controller) einen guten Server abgibt. Ob aber mir z.Zt. nicht bekannte Gruende (ausser s.o.) dagegen sprechen, wuerde mich auch sehr interessieren.
Ich habe einem anderen Institut hier in Kiel empfohlen, sich lieber SS10/40 oder noch kleiner als FileServer zuzulegen und dafuer SS10/54 als Rechenserver zu nehmen (nicht als beides, das gibt m.E. Performance- Probleme).
'more reliable setup' ? Wir haben die aergerliche Erfahrung gemacht, dass nur irgendwo ein Fileserver (von denen wir mittlerweile ziemlich viel haben) abschmieren muss und schon gibt es jede Menge Komplikationen. Wenn allerdings unsere 4/390 ('der' Server) abschmiert, laeuft nix mehr.
Gespannt auf das SUMMARY,
Claus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jay Plett" <jay@Princeton.EDU> Received: by flux (4.1/ee-client) id AA10406; Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:17:22 EDT Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:17:22 EDT Message-Id: <9210072117.AA10406@flux> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation Reply-To: jay@Princeton.EDU
I would not make a machine serve double duty as a workstation and a server. The functions are fundamentally incompatible. Performance will suffer, for both the workstation user and the services users. Also, workstations tend to crash and to be rebooted more frequently than servers, so there is the reliability issue. I like to keep my servers locked up in rooms where the users cannot touch them.
But otherwise I support your instincts. I would buy a one or two SS10 Model 30 or 41 machines as servers instead of the 670. Workstations are not only cheaper to buy, they are also cheaper and easier to maintain, and they tend to be more reliable.
Be aware, though, that administration of a single large server is much simpler than administration of several smaller servers.
...jay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 15:49:39 PDT From: rfinch@water.ca.gov (Ralph Finch) Message-Id: <9210072249.AA15947@caldwr.water.ca.gov> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
We have about 15 Suns with no dedicated server. Instead, we put 1 and 2 GB disk drives on a SS2 and on a 4/330; it seems to work fine, though sometimes the 4/330 has load values of 3-5. Most of the Suns are dataless, BTW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) Message-Id: <9210072306.AA20821@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:06:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> from "Michael Steinbrunn" at Oct 7, 92 02:10:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL11] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 939
Here's my 100%-infallible statement on what a file server should be:
A file server
Period. Not shared as a compute server, not shared as a desktop workstation, no pretty graphics tube, no logins by ordinary users allowed. Just a file server. Period.
File service imposes very little load on the CPU, so there is no net benefit in using a fast CPU. A 670MP or SS10 as a dedicated server is a waster of cpu.
Note that local disk usage will take priority over NFS usage simply by dint of not having to go through the IP/NFS/ethernet layers. Thus any local use of the server disk will disproportionately reduce disk performance to the clients.
Get a headless SS-1, 1+ or 2, buy the best SCSI cards you can find, and put no more than two disks per SCSI interface. Use an ascii terminal for a console. You'll get overall better performance at a cheaper price, and never be tempted to put that file server to use as a workstation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:15:11 PDT From: srm@shasta.gvg.tek.com (Steve Maraglia) Message-Id: <9210072315.AA01589@shasta.gvg.tek.com> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
>From sun-managers-relay@ra.mcs.anl.gov Wed Oct 7 11:07:47 1992 > >Dear Sun-Managers, > >I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation >cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. >I've got an offer from Sun that consists >of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC >workstations as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX >were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP >can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. >But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB >disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same >performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three >Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more >reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the >entire cluster to go down. > >Any comments on that? Am I missing some important point? >I'll summarise. >
If you don't need VME capability than don't let Sun talk you into a 670MP. You can achieve some pretty high I/O thru-put with multiple SCSI-2 controllers and SCSI-2 disk drives.
As usually this is application dependent and you've not specified what applications you'll be running but I would suggest that one SPARC 10/30 would support 20 machines quite well! If your concerned about reliability, which is a legitimate concern, you could buy two SPARC 10's to split the load but I can tell you from experience (I support 120 SPARCS with 7 SPARC 2 servers) that Sun hardware is very reliable. Their software on the other hand is another story ;-)
On the Prestoserve issue, keep in mind that this solution only improves NFS write performance which in most cases is a small percentage of overall NFS activity. You should measure the write/read actitity before spending the bucks on a prestoserve card.
Just my .02 cents worth!
Good luck and don't let Sun sales talk you into spending money on hardware you don't need.
Steve Maraglia - System Administrator internet: srm@gold.gvg.tek.com Grass Valley Group - M/S N3-2C 400 Providence Mind Rd. Nevada City, CA 95959 (916) 478-4131 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mariela Esser-Jaime <esser@parc.xerox.com> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation Message-Id: <92Oct7.163459pdt.29194@bolivar.parc.xerox.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:34:48 PDT
Michael,
It depends on what you consider a "server". We have about 500 standalone suns, 20 of which are file servers. Our file servers are mostly SparcStation 2s with about 10GB each. We don't allow any computation on our file servers, though. I agree with you in that one, or a combination of, SS10s should be more than adecuate (and much cheaper). Mariela (esser@parc.xerox.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cogan@merlin.anu.edu.au (Bruce Cogan) Message-Id: <9210072346.AA26823@merlin> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
> From sun-managers-relay@ra.mcs.anl.gov Thu Oct 8 01:14:12 1992 > Sender: sun-managers-relay@ra.mcs.anl.gov > To: sun-managers@eecs.nwu.edu > Subject: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation > Reply-To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> > Followup-To: junk > Content-Length: 1280 > X-Lines: 27 > > > Dear Sun-Managers, > > I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation > cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. > I've got an offer from Sun that consists > of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC > workstations as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX > were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP > can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. > But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB > disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same > performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three > Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more > reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the > entire cluster to go down. > > Any comments on that? Am I missing some important point? > I'll summarise. > > -- > Michael Steinbrunn, Lehrstuhl f|r Informatik III, LuFG Prof. Kemper > Rheinisch-Westfdlische Technische Hochschule Aachen > Ahornstra_e 55, W-5100 Aachen, Deutschland > Tel.: (+49-241) 80-21340, Fax: (+49-241) 80-21349 > E-Mail: steinbrunn@informatik.rwth-aachen.de >
I think I agree with what you say. In addition, its not clear that the VME will give you faster disks. The IPI disks aren't much faster than SCSI. It looks like IPI comes out ahead only when you have say, 5 or more disks on a single bus, since the IPI controller has more intelligence that the SCSI.
Regards,
Bruce Cogan Bruce.Cogan@anu.edu.au Mt Stromlo Observatory Tel. +61 6 249 0232 Australian National University Fax +61 6 249 0233 Private Bag Weston Creek P.O. , ACT 2611, Australia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 15:19:17 CDT From: vasey@issi.com Message-Id: <9210072019.AA01012@> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
> I've got an offer from Sun that consists of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 > as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC...as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP ...
Unless you foresee a definite future for a large multi-processor SPARC engine on your network (which could someday be provided by a 600-series machine filled sith Super-SPARC modules ... although at great cost), there is no reason to get one, especially when you get great fileserver performance from SS2s, IPXs, and even ELCs ... or (obviously) an SS10.
> But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks...should > yield at least the same performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, > even if two or three Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, > one might even get a more reliable setup, because the failure of one > server doesn't necessarily cause the entire cluster to go down.
Your thinking is 100% correct. Take heart and try not to be dissuaded by managers and/or sales drones. Another advantage: reduced maintenance costs. (The 300/600-series can easily run 3-5 times the monthly cost of a desktop.) If there is self-maintenance in your future, you might want to keep the components (models) quite similar for interchangeability (eg, all IPXs).
Hope this helps! ++ Ron vasey@issi.com International Software Systems Peace! ++ 1+512+338-5724 9430 Research, Austin TX 78759 <>< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Gray <pdg@cs.uow.edu.au> Message-Id: <199210072358.AA04384@draci.cs.uow.edu.au> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 9:58:55 EST In-Reply-To: <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>; from "Michael Steinbrunn" at Oct 7, 92 2:10 pm
> > > Dear Sun-Managers, > > I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation > cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. > I've got an offer from Sun that consists > of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC > workstations as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX > were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP > can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. > But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB > disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same > performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three > Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more > reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the > entire cluster to go down. > > Any comments on that? Am I missing some important point? > I'll summarise. >
We run 15-20 machines from a single ss1+ as a server with no problems in response AT ALL. The secret is to run with asynchronous nfs writes. We run a product from Interstream called enfs that gives us about 5 times the nfs performance. Prestoserve from sun gives similar speedups. We run completely diskless as well.
In benchmarks, enfs on a SS1 gives the same if not better performance than a 670 with ipi disks.
We intend to increase the number of diskless machines to well over 20 before we update the server and when we do it will probably be to a ipx or similar.
Regards, pdg
Peter Gray Internet: pdg@cs.uow.EDU.AU Professional Officer UUCP: ...!munnari!cs.uow.EDU.AU!pdg Dept of Computer Science MHSnet: pdg@cs.uow.oz.au University of Wollongong Phone: +61 42 213770 N.S.W. 2500 Australia Fax : +61 42 213262 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:26:41 EST From: guyj@apollo.techpac.oz.au (Guy Jones) Message-Id: <9210080026.AA18484@techpac.oz.au> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
>From the specs I've seen I have to agree, it seems that there is little a 690MP can do that an SS10 can't. Techies that I've spoken to at SUN hold the same view.
Of course the only way to find out is to find someone who has tried it, if you get some feedback from sites already using SS10s as network servers I'd love to see a summary.
Guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:17:56 CDT From: Mike Raffety <miker@sbcoc.com> X-Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation Message-Id: <9210080017.AA13137@trinity.sbcoc.com> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Forget the 670 ... buy more SS-10s instead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: adam%bwnmr4@harvard.harvard.edu (Adam Shostack) Message-Id: <9210071644.AA16064@bwnmr4.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 12:47:17 EDT In-Reply-To: <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>; from "Michael Steinbrunn" at Oct 7, 92 2:10 pm
You wrote: | I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation | cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. | I've got an offer from Sun that consists | of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC | workstations as (dataless) clients. | Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX | were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP | can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. | But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB | disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same | performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three | Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more | reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the | entire cluster to go down.
We choose to do a very similar thing; we need servers for the VME bus, but each of our SS2's serves 1 or 2 gB of disk, and each server has 3. We have 15 machines in this configuration, and the response is pretty good. I think that it is significantly better than when we had more disk on the servers.
One problem is its tougher to administrate. exportfs needs to be changed on 15 machines if we add a new machine. Backup is not as efficient as from a server machine.
Failure of our /usr/local/ machine, or of the machine with home directories on it still brings everything down.
Nevertheless, if one of the data-only machines goes down, the rest of the network can keep plugging.
Adam
-- Adam Shostack adam@bwnmr4.harvard.edu Systems Manager 617-732-7692 Surgical Planning Lab, Dept of Radiology Fax 732-7963 Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:28:45 PDT From: dasun!wdceng!muir@uunet.UU.NET (Scott Muir (Muir) x6764) Message-Id: <9210072328.AA09616@wdceng.wdceng.com> To: uunet!informatik.rwth-aachen.de!steinbr@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
I would suggest proceeding without the 670MP. If you want a dedicated server, an SS10/30 with Presto, and a pair of the FSBE/S cards would make a very nice 3 network server with 3 SCSI ports on it. Each SCSI channel could be set up with several disks. Three networks may be many more than you need now, but you would be able to use them in the future if you wanted. This solution is probably overkill, but assuredly cheaper than the 670. The SS10 could be used as a router to connect your subnet into whatever existing net you have in this configuration. (Don't know if you want this though.)
The problem with the 670, if I remember right, is that Sun will not officially support SCSI disk on it. Their position on this may have changed, so please be sure to check. I don't see a big future for SMD or IPI disk, since Sun seems to be headed down an all SCSI path for the future. VME peripherals bought for the 670 will be more expensive than their SBus counterparts, and probably won't be usable in whatever Sun's next generation is. Sun, however, does say that they are committed to SBus. The 670 does have SBus slots, but if you're going to buy SBus peripherals, then why get all that VME hardware?
One feature that the 670 might offer would be the ability to use any old VME boards you might have around. Also, the 670 can probably support the NC400 boards (the NFS coprocessor) - this is perhaps interesting if you foresee needing a lot of NFS capability. Your brief description doesn't seem to indicate that this is the case.
The 670 is bigger than an SS10, but once the SS10's have MP, it probably won't be any faster. A 670 will also take up more space and create more heat.
I guess I vote for some sort of solution based on the desktop machines, and the solution that you propose also seems like a good one. One benefit of your scheme is that some users will have the advantage of using local disk.
Good luck.
-Scott
Scott Muir Western Digital Corporation 8105 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92718 (714) 932-6764
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Garrett <mag@jodrell-bank.manchester.ac.uk> Message-Id: <Pine.3.04.9210080822.A25670-c100000@jbss0> To: steinbrunn@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: ss10 servers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I think you are right a couple of SS10 acting as servers should work well. At the moment we have a SS2 serving /home and /usr to 7 other Suns (one of them diskless) without problems. We have local data disks on all of workstations so that they do not need to drag data accross ethernet (a major bottle neck). If I were you I would make sure all your workstations have local swap and page areas on their system disk. We have two SPARC-10 model 31's which seem to be living up to their expected SPEC mark so I reckon your plan would work. It might be worth investing in memory (after all its cheap), taking the SPARC-10's to 64Mb. If you can hang on, why not wait for the SS10 model 52 that's what we hope to use as a server when it arrives. Also I would try and stick with SCSI disk as they are now getting quite fast and they are really cheap compared to high performance disks which may not deliver the goods anyway. I suspect the SS10 disk controller may be a bottleneck for i/o anyway - i.e. disk speed may not be an issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Garrett | mag@jb.man.ac.uk (Internet) University of Manchester | +44 (0)477-71321 x245 (Phone) Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories | +44 (0)477-71618 (FAX) Jodrell Bank | 36149 JODREL G (Telex) Macclesfield | Cheshire SK11 9DL | U.K. | _______________________________________________________________________________
Gravitational Lenses provide a theorists heaven & an observers hell.
--- P.J.E. Peebles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 17:30:26 CST From: fallan@awadi.com.AU (Frank Allan (Network Manager)) Message-Id: <9210080800.AA08742@awadi.com.AU> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Michael
we are currently using 2 x 32MB Sparc 2 machines as servers for 58 clients (mainly ELC/SLC - with 6 IPCs using local disk for swap - but not for root or usr)
We are just about to replace these two servers with a Sparc10.
While the performance is not blinding, it is usable for a mix of software development, word processing, small amounts of CAD/CAE, and general desktop use for email, calendar, spreadsheets etc.
I would think that a 670 would be overkill as a server for 10-20 workstations unless they were doing lots of server intensive work. Even then, as you say, a Prestoserve or two in a couple of Sparc10's seems a better configuration for contingency, and probably just as good for server capability.
hope this is of some help
cheers Frank Allan Network Manager e-mail: fallan@awadi.com.au AWA Defence Industries Phone: Intn'l + 61 8 343 6357 Module 3 Endeavour House Home: Intn'l + 61 8 263 5723 Fourth Avenue Fax: Intn'l + 61 8 262 7489 Technology Park SA 5095 Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: celita@taux01.nsc.com Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:43:03 +0200 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91) To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Hi, Just a quick note - no time now - we have about 75 w/s with 8 disk servers. The disk servers are all SS2 machines (some with two scsi boards). About half of our user community uses the w/s for heavy simulations. ALL w/s have a local disk with system, tmp and swap. Performence is quite good and from the feature list of SS10, looks like it will be even better as they have improved i/o.
I fully recommend such a setup as opposed to an expensive single server. Regards, Eli
----- Quoted from Michael Steinbrunn in "Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation" of Oct 7, ------ > > Dear Sun-Managers, > > I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation > cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. > I've got an offer from Sun that consists > of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC > workstations as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX > were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP > can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. > But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB > disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same > performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three > Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more > reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the > entire cluster to go down. > > Any comments on that? Am I missing some important point? > I'll summarise. > > -- > Michael Steinbrunn, Lehrstuhl f|r Informatik III, LuFG Prof. Kemper > Rheinisch-Westfdlische Technische Hochschule Aachen > Ahornstra_e 55, W-5100 Aachen, Deutschland > Tel.: (+49-241) 80-21340, Fax: (+49-241) 80-21349 > E-Mail: steinbrunn@informatik.rwth-aachen.de ----- End of reference from Michael Steinbrunn -----
-- ========================================================================== || Eli Lopez, Systems Manager, National Semiconductor, Israel || \\ Phone: 972-52-594-236, Fax: 972-52-558-322 // ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:43:01 +0100 To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Steinbrunn) From: jba@ruc.dk Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Hello Michael,
If you can wait some 3-4 months I should be much more in a position to tell you whether a couple of SS10's will work as a kind of server-cluster. This fall we made an order of 2 SS10/32MB/3GB and 4 ELC/32MB but nothing has been delivered yet.
We thought of upgrading our SS470 to a SS670, but eventually reached the conclusion that a pair of SS10's would suit us just a well - if not better.
>From what I remember, an IPC or IPX (with or without the PrestoServe) would be more than adequate as a NFS-server - provided it had a large memory (min. 32MB) and that it wouldn't have to do anything else. It simply would take too much performance out of it, if it had to swap processes and/or disk- buffers in and out to serve a NFS-request.
And as you said yourself, once you start on buying smaller, dedicated machines with a fast SCSI-2 bus, you can easily swap components around and avoid expensive on-site maintenaince contracts. We will only have a 'carry-in' contracts on our new machines, hoping that should one of the SS10's break down, one of the ELC's will be able to replace it for short period of time. Similar, with SCSI-disks a disk-crash should be much easier to handle - just find a spare disk, reload from the backup, and fire it up again.
BTW, 3 weeks ago I was at a meeting in the danish EUnet-group, DKNET, and one of the speakers was the manager of the central EUnet operation in Amsterdam. He said, that they would always prefer buying a small, dedicated server, install the required software, and "nail it to the wall" once it was up and running.
Good luck! /| / Jan B. Andersen /^^^\ .-------------. / | / RUC, Hus 19,1 { o_o } |SIMULA does | /--|/ Postbox 260 jba@dat.ruc.dk \ o / --> |it with CLASS| `--' ' DK-4000 Roskilde Postmaster@ruc.dk --mm---mm-- `-------------'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:27:53 EDT From: pjw@math30.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Peter J. Welcher -- math FACULTY <pjw@math30.sma.usna.navy.MIL>) Message-Id: <9210081127.AA09435@math30.sma.usna.navy.MIL> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
That's my thinking: buy SPARC 2 or 10 desktops with server packs as servers, because then you can have hot spares on other desktops. Also can just move the server disk pack(s) to another SCSI port and do some minor editing of fstab.
Sun is dropping all but SCSI-2 drives, or so I hear, so I don't see where VME is faster. Just costs more and takes up more room. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Peter J. Welcher EMAIL: pjw@math30.sma.usna.navy.MIL Mathematics Department, M/S 9E PHONE: (410) 267-3606 572 Holloway Road U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis, MD 21402-5002 FAX: (410) 267-4883 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:34:52 +0100 From: JanBerger.Henriksen@ii.uib.no Message-Id: <9210081234.AA01776@alm.ii.uib.no> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Buy SS10 servers, if necessary multi-processor SS10s. The servers should as a rule-of thumb be as powerful as the most powerful workstations they are to serve. That rules out the IPX. The 670MP is a waste of money. SBus is much faster (and cheaper) than VMEbus.
I would not buy Prestoserve before I have seen the performance of the SS10. According to the product info on SS10, they are supposed to offer 700-900 NFS ops pr second.
We hope to install 2-processors SS10s as servers before the end of the year.
Regards,
Jan Berger Henriksen Principal Engineer Institute of Informatics E-mail: jan@ii.uib.no University of Bergen N - 5020 Bergen, Phone : 47-5-544173 Norway Fax : 47-5-544199
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:38:29 -0400 From: Christian Lawrence <cal@soac.bellcore.com> Message-Id: <199210081238.AA01430@jabbok.soac.bellcore.com> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Michael,
Fast SCSI is already out there and Fast Wide SCSI (20 MB/s) is coming within a year. I tell most people ... the only reasons to buy a VME system is
1) you already have an investment in VME boards 2) you need communications boards that are VME based 3) you need IPI because you have non-standard (i.e. not UFS/NFS) disk activity that demands high bandwidth because of huge transfers (e.g. CAD/CAM, database application storing bitmaps/raster images).
Otherwise, SCSI price performance and server price performance **CONSIDERABLY BLOWS OUT** IPI/VME solutions.
Besides the 670 doesn't officially support IPI and if you're doing UFS/NFS you're better off adding memory and getting disks with the smallest seek/latency times since thats ultimately the bottleneck. I think you're on target !!!!
Hope this helps.
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:08:04 PDT From: Michael_P._Kirby.roch803@xerox.com Subject: Alternatives to servers To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Reply-To: Michael_P._Kirby.roch803@xerox.com Message-Id: <" 8-Oct-92 9:08:04 EDT".*.Michael_P._Kirby.roch803@Xerox.com>
Received: by opus.isdl (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA07623; Thu, 8 Oct 92 09:07:53 EDT
We use 3 SS2's attached to 5, 10 and 2 gigabyte disks. In addition, most people have external 424 disks on their individual machines. This lets us store common data on the file service, byt accounts and temorary informaion (compiles, and stuff like that) are all stored on the local machine. Automounting is used to allow people to get at their data from any machine. From a performance perspective this works very well. We store large images and shared software (openwindows, guide, etc..) on the servers and we don't notice any serious time delay.
I'm not sure how many dataless workstations can be supported by a sparc2 or 10. My guess is that it is at least 10-20. depending on what kind of work you do.
One thing that you might want to do is not get the hardware contract for your sparc 2's (ss1 & 1+'s go down enough to warrent it). Take the money you save and buy local disks for things like swap space & unix. We no longer have a hardware contract, and we find our machines very very rarely go down. (of course, if you live in an area that looses power occasionaly maybe you want to reconsider that idea -- But I'm told that europe has a much better power distributio grid than the U.S. so that shoulnd't be a problem).
Hope this helps.
Mike Kirby Xerox Image Systems Development Laboratory ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:10:42 BST." <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:17:48 -0400 From: Gustavo Vegas <gustavo@davinci.concordia.ca> Message-Id: <9210071417.aa29285@davinci.concordia.CA>
Hello, An SS10, model 30 (I think) can also take more that 1 CPU Mbus card, if multiprocessing is needed. This may also speed up the NFS or whatever other transactions. Sun is shipping what they call SparServer 10, which is just an SS10 without a framebuffer. You can also get Wren 9 disks (1.9 GB formatted), and extra Sbus fast SCSI cards, and do disk striping, etc.,. The important resources to support operation can be supported on a SCSI interface, like tapes, disks, CD-ROMS and the like. So, IMHO, it is possible to run a 10-20 workstation network using an SS10 as a server. Hey, we're currently using a beefed up SS2 as a server for 11 other SS2's, and it's keeping up well. We also have an IPX acting as a server for 3 other IPX's and 3 ELC's, and is also working good.
I hope this helps, -------- ==== === ==== =======================+=========================== = = = = Gustavo Vegas gustavo@davinci.concordia.ca === = === Systems Analyst Concordia University = = = = Dept. of E&CE Montreal, Canada ==== === ==== =======================+=========================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Adam W. Feigin" <feigin@iis.ethz.ch> Message-Id: <199210081336.AA23826@err.ethz.ch> To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:10:42 +0100. <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Reply-To: Adam W. Feigin <awf@iis.ethz.ch> Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich X-Mailer: MH [version 6.7.1] Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 14:36:39 +0100
Michael:
I used to run 20 SS IPC's off a single SS1+ for more than 2 years, and didn't have any problems. The IPC's were all dataless, and used their local 200 MB disks for swapping and /tmp only; there were no user file systems. The only time there was heavy network traffic was when more than a couple of machines decided to boot at once. With an SS10 as a server, coupled with fast SCSI disks, you should have no problems running 10-20 machine on a dedicated subnet. And, you can take the money you saved from not purchasing the 670, and buy another CPU for the SS10, or more disk, or a prestoserve card, etc.
You dont really gain much by having VME, unless you have to have it for some reason. Fast SCSI disks are much cheaper than IPI disks, and have the same (or better) performance.
/AWF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet: awf@iis.ethz.ch Adam W. Feigin UUCP:{backbones}!iis!awf Network Systems Manager Mail: Integrated Systems Laboratory Institute for Integrated Systems ETH-Zentrum Swiss Federal Institute of Technology CH-8092 Zurich Zurich, Switzerland Switzerland Phone: +41 1 256 50 53
"To know that you do not know is best. To pretend to know when you do not know is disease" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 12:41:52 BST Message-Id: <9210081141.AA11270@lincoln.gpsemi.com> To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> From: fergus@lincoln.gpsemi.com Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Michael
I think you are correct!
1) please summarise.
2) I had the same problem with a similar sized sort of setup. Other parts of the company went and bought large server configuration. And seem to be finding it very expensive to run, service and expand.
We have a decicated ss2 as a file server with the cheap scsi disks. No machines are on maint. If the server fails we can in less than half an hour orgainize another machine to replace it on the network.
All our clients mount there applications read-only from an "appshost" and all user areas are on "homehost" each of which is a 1.3G SCSI disk. "appshost" and "homehost" are currently the same machine! One interesting lesson we learned here is:- dont have you major file server as a NIS server. Thus when/if the server fails, you can remove its disks - replaceing them on another machine, then readvertize the new location of the home/apps-host from the NIS server, and your up and going again.
We have a presto serve board. But Im not convinced we need them.
I feel that the extra you pay for SMD etc doesnt really come back in terms of performance, and when you are finished with the machine you generally have to replace its disks. With SCSI old disks always find a home somewhere
================================================================= Fergus McMenemie Tel: (0522) 500500 (switchboard) GEC Plessey Semiconductors Tel: (0522) 502210 Principal Engineer Fax: (0522) 502393 (design ctr fax) Doddington Road Fax: (0522) 500550 (main fax) Lincoln Gnet: Code 595 LN6 3LF Email: fergus@lincoln.gpsemi.com. England =================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Hendley <R.J.Hendley@computer-science.birmingham.ac.uk> Message-Id: <"26918 Thu Oct 8 21:34:47 1992"@mhs-relay.ac.uk> To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
> > Dear Sun-Managers, > > I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small >workstation > cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. > I've got an offer from Sun that consists > of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, I >PX and IPC > workstations as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of > the SS10 or IPX > were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand > that the 670MP > can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks >. > But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (ab >out 2-4 1.3GB > disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at l >east the same > performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two o >r three > Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might > even get a more > reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't neces >sarily cause the > entire cluster to go down. > > Any comments on that? Am I missing some important point?
I don't think you are missing an important point at all.
The SS-10 is every bit as good as a 670. If you want a REALLY big configuration or if you need IPI disks you might be forced to choose a 6x0, but otherwise an SS10 should be fine - it will cost less and maint. will be lower. I also think that VME machines cannot be long for this world, so you may find that the SS10 is better long term.
We have used SS1+s for the sort of job you are talking about and they were fine as long as the workload was low - but I wouldn't get an IPX now.
Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John DiMarco <jdd@db.toronto.edu> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation Newsgroups: list.sun-managers References: <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Message-Id: <92Oct7.145923edt.9053@rock.db.toronto.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:59:22 -0400
In list.sun-managers you write:
>Dear Sun-Managers,
>I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation >cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. >I've got an offer from Sun that consists >of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC >workstations as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX >were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP >can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. >But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB >disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same >performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three >Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more >reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the >entire cluster to go down.
If you have need for specific VME peripherals, the 670 is a good choice. If not, it may still be a good choice because it supports VME-based NFS co-processors (eg. NC400, NC600). These dramatically increase the number of clients a server can support.
But if you have 10-20 machines, you probably don't need this yet. If you have 40-60, then you need it.
Don't fall into the temptation of supporting several servers. This can be rather difficult to administer, and can increase rather than decrease the likelihood of system failure, because any one of the servers can fail. It's very difficult to design your system to operate well, with a server missing, because all sorts of user data will by necessity be on that server.
However, in your environment, one SS-10 will make as good a server as a 670, if you're willing to forego the option of adding NFS co-processors.
John -- John DiMarco jdd@cdf.toronto.edu Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto EA201B,(416)978-1928 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques.Beigbeder@ens.ens.fr (Jacques Beigbeder) Message-Id: <9210071909.AA06711@merisier.ens.fr> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 20:09:19 MET In-Reply-To: <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>; from "Michael Steinbrunn" at Oct 7, 92 2:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
>> I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation >> cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. >> I've got an offer from Sun that consists >> of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC >> workstations as (dataless) clients. >> Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX >> were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP >> can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. >> But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB >> disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same >> performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three >> Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more >> reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the >> entire cluster to go down.
(I will use prices in French Francs, perhaps you are not used to, but for the comparison that's OK).
There are 2 choices:
. a very big server (670MP) and a set of small workstations.
Pro: in special environments, the administration is centralized and robust. We did this for a room with 13 stations for students. Students can reboot stations as they want, no trouble with fsck (diskless stations), no trouble for other stations.
Con : expensive. 10 stations + a server = 2MF that is 200kf per station.
. a set of stations with local disks. And a disk server for the very shared files.
Pro : the price. When we bought the last configuration, we could have bought a station with 669 Mb of disks for 120/130kF per station. (40% cheaper) And our network would have 6.69GB...
Pro: the speed. A station with a local disk is more powerful than a networked one.
Con: the administration (10 stations to manage). With automount, this is not so hard...
Con: the manage of huge files, better to centralize on a big server.
Con : the noise.
-----------------
So to day I would: . for students : buy the more robust configuration (server + stations) . for researchers : a set of stations with local disks. (price!) And a small education for everyone. A Sun is not a Mac: no power-off, no reboot at the first problem, etc.
Jacques Beigbeder | Internet: beig@ens.fr Service de Prestations Informatiques | Bitnet : beig@frulm63 Ecole Normale Superieure | Tel : (33-1) 44-32-37-96 F75230 Paris Cedex 05 | Fax : (33-1) 44-32-20-80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 15:41:24 EDT Content-Length: 423 Content-Type: text Message-Id: <9210071941.AA16968@hogpb.ho.att.com> From: tommy@hogpa.ho.att.com (Thomas L Reingold +1 908 949 5706) To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
My Sun salesman confirmed that the difference between the large cabinets and the desktop systems is sheet metal. The desktop system is capable of acting as a server. The salesman also said that scsi-2 is the way to go, giving you the best performance. You should buy a server-style machine only if you need it to mount components or if you need the VME bus.
Tom Reingold AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ tommy@hogpb.att.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:10:42 BST." <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:59:24 -0500 From: higgins@math.niu.edu
> >Dear Sun-Managers, > >Any comments on that? Am I missing some important point? >I'll summarise. >
I think as long as you have a couple SS10s in the batch you shouldnt have any problems. I'm currently running a 20ws system (about 16 diskless) using a SUN3/280, 2 IPCs and an SS1+.
This fall we'll be changing that to be 31 WS with 1 (64MB) SPARC2, and 3 (64MB) ELCs with either another SPARC2 or another SLC as the 5th server.
They'll be about 22 diskless clients and a couple dataless clients. It won't be super fast, but it will be usable.
Over the 5 following years, I intend to upgrade one server / year to an ss10 level machine. I think you're right about the pestoserves and wish I could afford them. I think you're 100% right about the 600 class machines. Of course, if you're sending lots of images, it may make a difference. Since you're not planning any diskless stations, I don't see the problem. Use the SS10s as servers and be sure to use 10MB scsi disks. >-- >Michael Steinbrunn, Lehrstuhl f|r Informatik III, LuFG Prof. Kemper >Rheinisch-Westfdlische Technische Hochschule Aachen >Ahornstra_e 55, W-5100 Aachen, Deutschland >Tel.: (+49-241) 80-21340, Fax: (+49-241) 80-21349 >E-Mail: steinbrunn@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ | E. Gregory Higgins <higgins@math.niu.edu> _/ _/ _/ _/ | Systems Manager _/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ | Department of Mathematical Sciences _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | Northern Illinois University _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ | DeKalb, IL 60115 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 13:43:02 PDT From: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) Message-Id: <9210072043.AA21346@eris.sj.ate.slb.com> Received: by rushmore.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM (4.1/DUMB-1.0) id AA08548; Wed, 7 Oct 92 13:43:06 PDT To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation In-Reply-To: Mail from 'Michael Steinbrunn <steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de>' dated: Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:10:42 +0100
>Dear Sun-Managers, > >I'm currently assessing configuration alternatives for a small workstation >cluster of about 10-20 machines total on a dedicated subnet. >I've got an offer from Sun that consists >of a SPARC 670MP Mod. 120 as server and a mixture of SS10/30, IPX and IPC >workstations as (dataless) clients. > Considering the cost of a 670MP, I wonder whether not some of the SS10 or IPX >were capable of acting as servers for the cluster. I understand that the 670MP >can support VME as well as S-Bus cards, and, thus, faster disks. >But the SS10 now comes with a fast SCSI-2-Bus and the disks (about 2-4 1.3GB >disks) attached to two or three SS10(-server) should yield at least the same >performance as the single 670MP with lesser cost, even if two or three >Prestoserve cards have to be purchased. In addition, one might even get a more >reliable setup, because the failure of one server doesn't necessarily cause the >entire cluster to go down. >
For an NFS server I recommend an Auspex. They have a lower end model called the NS3000. The NFS performance, quality, reliability, and service are unmatched.
Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies ATE UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 Voice: (408)437-5254 FAX: (408)437-5246
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:10:44 EDT From: rick%pgt1@Princeton.EDU (Rick Mott) Message-Id: <9210072110.AA06234@possum.pgt> To: informatik.rwth-aachen.de!steinbr@Princeton.EDU In-Reply-To: Michael Steinbrunn's message of Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:10:42 +0100 <9210071310.AA21038@talisker.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Well, we have a net of approximately the size you're talking about, maybe even a little bigger, and we have desktop models (IPC's, not even Sparc-10's) driving a small farm of SCSI disks. It seems perfectly adequate for our needs (primarily software development). The notion is that all the various source and object directories are spread around multiple physical drives, so no one system gets too heavily loaded. If you were doing transaction processing on a single database, or something like that, where everybody needed to get at the same file all the time, a heavy-duty server would make sense.
My impression is that we are running up against Ethernet bandwidth limits long before we're running up against disk waits.
Setting up the backup is a bit of a pain, but you only have to do that once... Also, you're in for some ongoing headaches managing the NFS mounts, etc. etc.
Another tip is to make sure the servers aren't doing anything else (even running the window system, except for system administration). Any significant activity cuts down on it's performance as a server. Of course, for what a server costs, you can dedicate a dozen low-end desktops. I would consider getting more disk (say, 6 drives of 1.3 gig each) and a monochrome IPX for each one. You'd be amazed how fast you'll fill up 8GB with 20 users...
Rick Mott princeton!pgt1!rick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:15:44 GMT From: hansen@SCR.SLB.COM Message-Id: <9210130915.AA03677@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com> To: steinbr@informatik.rwth-aachen.de X-Vms-From: hansen X-Vms-To: PSI%sndsu1::informatik.rwth-aachen.de::steinbr Subject: RE: SUMMARY: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
To: PSI%sndsu1::informatik.rwth-aachen.de::steinbr Subject: RE: SUMMARY: Server Machine vs. Desktop Workstation
Hi Michael,
If I were in your shoes I would go for two servers (at least.) I don't agree that two servers are twice as likely to have a breakdown as one, it's depending upon how you set them up. I strongly favour the Auspex solution, the problem is that it is a little pricey. At least for me...
So my suggestion would be: two powerful machines type SPARC-10, to use as servers. One to be a dedicated NFS server, disable logins (use a netgroup of administrator(s) in hosts.local), disable rexd, tune the machine to be a dedicated NFS server: plenty of memory, large network buffers, maybe more than one Ethernet, and Prestoserve. This machine would contain the clients' operating systems, applications, and home directories. I can almost guarantee you that this machine will not go down, as long as you are sensible and don't put on the latest release of the OS the day it arrives. Our 4/390 runs in a similar way - it hasn't crashed for a year, except once because of a faulty memory module. True!
The other SPARC-10 could be your compute server. As a compute server this will be inherently unstable, but as long as no clients mount anything (suggest you use the automounter) a crash will not cause your entire network to go down. Our 4/690MP runs as a compute server for heavy scientific applications, and it's too unstable for my liking.
A year ago we tried to run both as general-purpose servers - that did NOT work very well - splitting the work haas improved reliability (at least the *percieved* reliability...) tenfold. If you go for two servers - DON'T try to run both the same way, they'll just give you twice as much grief as one...
If you're worried about administration of all your workstations you might want to consider running them almost `diskless'. My local hard disks are used only for swap, /var (and local user scratch space for the case of 424MB disks and I use tmpfs. No-one complained about performance when I changed from dataless to diskless clients, on the contrary, my users were pleased that upgrading our main server AND all clients now can be done in an evening: upgrade the server, add one client to create a new kernel, create a generic machine and kick off a script on the server to create all other clients. The latter takes a few hours, but as the process goes on, I can do any local modifications and walk around to check that the newly created systems boot up. Beats spending a weekend walking around with a CD-ROM drive under my arm.
I don't back local disks up - it's quicker to re-create than restore /var. For our 80+ workstations this works without problems. And it's a hell of a lot easier to copy things in place than rdist-ing them!
Anyway, this is just my ideas and other people could say I'm wrong to do what I do.
Best wishes, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ove Hansen e-mail : hansen@scr.slb.com Schlumberger Cambridge Research Tel/fax: 0223-325246 / 0223-315486 P.O.Box 153, Cambridge CB3 0HG, England (International prefix for UK: 44) ============================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:06:51 CDT