Groups > alt.privacy.anon-server > #66881

Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs

Message-ID	<efce801c6547b272194d3cf269fd4f91@dizum.com> (permalink)
From	Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
Date	2018-11-20 10:19 +0100
References	<psv1j9$3ej$2@news.albasani.net> <e3dcf1fef90f2c710e09598f70534a67@hoi-polloi.org>
Newsgroups	alt.privacy.anon-server, alt.os.linux, comp.os.linux.misc, comp.os.vms
Subject	Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <e3dcf1fef90f2c710e09598f70534a67@hoi-polloi.org>
Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
> >
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 06:23:08 +0100, Anonymous Remailer 
(austria)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And to think Intel was responsible for killing Alpha, then 
helping
>>> foist that piece of shit IA64 on us.
>>
>> You might like to learn that IA64 is immune to all these 
attacks
>> that are plaguing the x86 architecture.
>
>   Unfortunately, the IA64 was developed by a joint partnership between
>   Intel and Hewlett-Packard.  So you probably can't get an IA64 unless
>   you but an HP.  I am personally through with HPs because the HP
>   laptops I have owned only lasted 2 to 3 years.  I am still using my
>   last one for a security camera system, but its screen died after
>   only two years of use.

We eventually moved off HP because they slowly locked us out of 
our own equipment with firmware restrictions and AHS.

When you spend over $35K per server in basically disposable 
hardware alone, then add another $50-100K each in software / 
licensing, you'd like to believe you'll get more than one year's 
access to firmware and unrestricted access to logging to 
reassure your hardware runs reliably.  HP seems to feel you as a 
customer are just incompetents in need of assistance from idiots 
in India.

We went with 240 Intel blade servers and 20 chassis plus some 
NetApps.  The Intel has been very good.  The jury is still out 
if the NetApp buy was a good decision.  They have been okay, but 
they break way more frequently than IBM or HP storage.  We have 
some old IBM DS4300 and HP P2000G3s that still chug along eating 
the occasional disk.  The NetApps have eaten SFPs, disks, power 
supplies, memory, power cords, etc.. There's a NetApp guy in the 
break room a couple times a week.  If their storage is so good, 
why do they need clusters?  Or is it because it's so bad, they 
need them?

We had an old Vaxcluster at one time that was always up and 
running.  I think it still is somewhere on some kind of software 
emulators.

Thread

Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Nomen Nescio <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-11-16 20:21 -0600
  Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-11-17 11:10 +0100
    Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-17 11:26 +0100
    Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2018-11-18 06:23 +0100
      Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2018-11-19 19:06 +0000
        Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-11-19 21:44 +0100
          Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-11-20 10:19 +0100
        Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> - 2018-11-19 18:44 -0500
          Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2018-11-19 19:00 -0500
            Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2018-11-26 20:40 -0800
        Re: Linux 4.20 is Running Slower Than 4.19 On Intel CPUs Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-11-20 10:09 +0100

csiph-web