On 10.12.2014 22:37, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com
> <mailto:brane_at_wandisco.com>> wrote:
>
> On 10.12.2014 22:01, Mohsin wrote:
>
> > This thing is very strange for me because svn should work
> properly on
> > Solaris machine because that machine have better specs but result is
> > opposite.
>
> What are "better specs", exactly? It's not at all obvious to me that a
> SunFire T1000 would have "better specs" than an ordinary off-the-shelf
> PC running Linux. For example, by default, the T1000 has about 80GB of
> disk ... compared to about 10 times as much on your common desktop
> box.
> So, again, you'll have to be more precise in your comparisons.
>
>
> I searched the archives without luck, but thought I recall some people
> posting these machines were not good with SVN. Aren't these the ones
> capable of running a lot of threads but are very slow single thread
> machines? The processor is only like 1 Ghz I believe.
It's an UltraSparc, around 1GHz; theoretically 8-way multi-threaded,
with shared L2 cache (IIRC, somewhat equivalent to x86 hyperthreading,
but a decade older technology).
> So maybe with an Apache server receiving a lot of concurrent requests
> where all of those threads can be used this machine would be OK. But
> otherwise, I'd assume it would be much slower than an x86 machine of
> any kind.
Absolutely. The SunFires, and any other Sparc machines, have not kept up
with the rest of the world when it comes to performance (and "specs" in
general).
Here's the relevant docco:
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19076-01/t1k.srvr/819-3245-12/819-3245-12.pdf
You'll note that it says "Copyright 2007" ... not exactly bleeding edge.
-- Brane
Received on 2014-12-10 22:52:58 CET