IBM Dominates Supercomputer List – Again

Internetnews ^ | 27 June 2007 | Stuart J. Johnston

[antiRepublicrat]

You seem to have run away with your tail between your legs, so here goes, I'll be magnanimous in victory:

On the Windows side you priced the cluster pack, which is clustering software that is installed on an existing, licensed copy of Windows. If anyone listened to you in building a new Windows cluster, they'd have paid as little as $700 for Windows Server 2003 Standard * 1,024 = $716,800. Cluster pack is $150 * 1,024 extra, $153,600 for a total of $870,400. The cluster server (W2K3 only licensed to do clustering, clustering software loaded) is about $310 at CDW, so $317,440. You just cost your client $552,960 by not knowing what the hell you're talking about. I really, really hope you have nothing to do with software purchases where you work.

As far as Red Hat, you should, of course, buy Red Hat's HPC cluster license instead of the full server. That's $79 a year, a bit over $200 for three years (the normal Windows upgrade cycle, too, so add Software Assurance to your Windows to equal), about $205,000. And that's without going for a discount like you did with Windows.

So you didn't just cost your client over $100,000 by going with Windows instead of Red Hat for a regular cluster setup, your purchasing practices would have actually cost over half a million. And that with zero hint I know of that Windows actually does clustering faster than RHEL, and REHL is already known to be very, very fast against the regular competition.

In essence, you better have a very specific, targeted reason for going Windows, otherwise you're wasting a lot of money. And Microsoft's argument for "there's more software available on our platform" seriously works against Microsoft in this industry where *NIX rules.

BTW, the last cluster version for Red Hat was a workstation with HPC software, so "That’s a freaking DESKTOP dude.", actually, yes, until the latest version. N3WBI3 was closer than you, and the price was within a few dollars.

[Golden Eagle]

That's $79 a year, a bit over $200 for three years (the normal Windows upgrade cycle, too, so add Software Assurance to your Windows to equal), about $205,000.

Make it four which is more realistic, making it about what the new Windows for clusters costs up front. But of course you ommited all this information about Red Hat costs until now, making your initial whines about Microsoft costs laughable, just like your constant defenses of green party leftists, foreign criminal hackers, and free technology for communist governments.

[antiRepublicrat]

Make it four which is more realistic

Microsoft's inability to get Vista out the door in time is the fluke. Not counting that, the NT major release cycle has been on average less than three years going on both the server (1, 2, 4 and 3 years) and workstation (1, 2, 4 and 1 year) branches. And since the new server is expected next year, you'd better get your Windows with SA, otherwise you'll be shelling out for an upgrade in the next year or so.

But of course you ommited all this information about Red Hat costs until now

You were supposed to know, oh expert who immediately started quoting prices. The wrong ones, of course, and said I couldn't be trusted because our prices didn't match (you had the wrong product, and I was going straight from Microsoft's web site). You still haven't apologized for that unwarranted attack.

making your initial whines about Microsoft costs laughable

Windows costs more than Red Hat, and there is no evidence it gives you better performance or management. Why do it unless you just have a hard-on for Microsoft, like you do?

[N3WBI3]

Has he posted where he is getting exchange info on redflag yet?