IBM announced 5 server models based on the Socket F/Rev F Opterons. Despite all of the hoopla surrounding Woodcrest, it does look like the Opteron momentum keeps growing. A recent article also said that AMD has now captured 25% of the overall x86 server market already.
Who's going to be confused by Socket AM2? The old one is for DDR1 and> new one is for DDR2. How much simpler can it get?>
I meant that confusion would result from AMD promising something and not delivering it. No confusion about what the product is, but confusion about which to buy, and when. IBM's "new" Opteron servers are a perfect example. They had to backtrack and ship with socket 940, but in a month or two they're supposed to have the socket F versions out.
Maybe I am going out on a limb, but why will socket F do any more for Opteron performance than AM2 did for Athlon performance (i.e. not much)? It would be interesting to see Opteron Santa Rosa performance compared to Woodcrest performance. Anyone seen any comparisons... or want to place a bet?
On 3 Aug 2006 11:29:02 -0700, "Steve" <steve.follmer@gmail.com> wrote:>> Who's going to be confused by Socket AM2? The old one is for DDR1 and>> new one is for DDR2. How much simpler can it get?>>
I meant that confusion would result from AMD promising something and>not delivering it. No confusion about what the product is, but>confusion about which to buy, and when. IBM's "new" Opteron servers are>a perfect example. They had to backtrack and ship with socket 940, but>in a month or two they're supposed to have the socket F versions out.>
Maybe I am going out on a limb, but why will socket F do any more for>Opteron performance than AM2 did for Athlon performance (i.e. not>much)?
I don't anticipate too much of a performance boost for most applications, though as a general rule servers are more bandwidth-hungry than desktops. One notable exception to this is SPEC CFP2000, which I suspect will see about a 10% boost in performance. Applications that closely mirror CFP2000 will similarly benefit, though those tend to be found more in the HPC market.
Another thing of note, Socket F does add a 4th Hypertransport channel vs. the 3 in Socket 940. This won't make a lick of difference for 1 or 2P servers, but it will help a bit for 4P servers and it'll help a lot for 8P servers. Combine that with the virtualization technology and it's quite a worthwhile step forward for the 4 and 8P market.
It would be interesting to see Opteron Santa Rosa performance>compared to Woodcrest performance. Anyone seen any comparisons... or>want to place a bet?
For most applications I suspect that Woodcrest will hold the edge. The ace up AMD's sleeve is that Woodcrest is limited to 1 or 2P systems, while Opteron can scale to at least 8 sockets and theoretically beyond that. Now, admittedly, with quad core (or dual-dual core) chips being released towards the end of this year, that might not be such a big deal.
------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Steve wrote:> > Who's going to be confused by Socket AM2? The old one is for DDR1 and> > new one is for DDR2. How much simpler can it get?> >
I meant that confusion would result from AMD promising something and> not delivering it. No confusion about what the product is, but> confusion about which to buy, and when. IBM's "new" Opteron servers are> a perfect example. They had to backtrack and ship with socket 940, but> in a month or two they're supposed to have the socket F versions out.
As I said, forget that Dailytech article, they're not even saying it anymore. Even the article you quoted has been changed; they've taken out references to it being Socket 940. I don't know how the morons at Dailytech came up with the idea that the new IBM servers are not going to be Socket F, when quite clearly they were always talking about DDR2 memories.
Maybe I am going out on a limb, but why will socket F do any more for> Opteron performance than AM2 did for Athlon performance (i.e. not> much)? It would be interesting to see Opteron Santa Rosa performance> compared to Woodcrest performance. Anyone seen any comparisons... or> want to place a bet?
Why does it have to be about performance only? There are other reasons for switching to DDR2, such as lower power consumption. Also DRAM makers are going to only do upgrades on DDR2 from this point forward, while DDR1 will be locked at its current density and speed levels forever more. So really, performance advantages or not, there are clearly good reasons for switching to DDR2 now. There comes a time when one DRAM technology approaches a tipping point over its predecessor, when it becomes more common than its predecessor, and that's what's now happened with DDR2 over DDR1.
If AMD hadn't done Socket AM2/F/S1, then people would be complaining about a lack of DDR2 support. So this is just standard housekeeping duties for them.
George Macdonald 8 August 2006 22:43:35 [ permanent link ]
On 7 Aug 2006 23:11:25 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
Steve wrote:>> > Who's going to be confused by Socket AM2? The old one is for DDR1 and>> > new one is for DDR2. How much simpler can it get?>> >
I meant that confusion would result from AMD promising something and>> not delivering it. No confusion about what the product is, but>> confusion about which to buy, and when. IBM's "new" Opteron servers are>> a perfect example. They had to backtrack and ship with socket 940, but>> in a month or two they're supposed to have the socket F versions out.>
As I said, forget that Dailytech article, they're not even saying it>anymore. Even the article you quoted has been changed; they've taken>out references to it being Socket 940. I don't know how the morons at>Dailytech came up with the idea that the new IBM servers are not going>to be Socket F, when quite clearly they were always talking about DDR2>memories.
George Macdonald wrote:> The pic here http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=149564> is not very good but I'd guess socket F... and worth noting that we have> another F1 team with Opteron cluster/server. Still dunno what happened to> Sauber's rig.
Yeah, knew about Red Bull getting themselves some Opterons. The press release didn't make it clear how many they were buying. But Red Bull took over the Ferrari engine deal from Sauber after they were bought by BMW, so it looks like every customer team that Ferrari supplies, end up going with Opteron clusters. So the Ferrari sponsorship is working out well for their Formula 1 supercluster marketshare numbers.
I'm sure that the Sauber cluster is also working away quietly in the background there, it's not that easy to replace that many Opterons in one sitting. I'm sure Intel would rather they got replaced by Core 2 Xeons rather than Pentium Xeons, just to showcase their best technology. So considering the problems Intel is having in producing Core 2's at the moment, Sauber will likely be still running Opterons well into next year.
On 8 Aug 2006 14:03:44 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:>> The pic here http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=149564>> is not very good but I'd guess socket F... and worth noting that we have>> another F1 team with Opteron cluster/server. Still dunno what happened to>> Sauber's rig.>
Yeah, knew about Red Bull getting themselves some Opterons. The press>release didn't make it clear how many they were buying. But Red Bull>took over the Ferrari engine deal from Sauber after they were bought by>BMW, so it looks like every customer team that Ferrari supplies, end up>going with Opteron clusters. So the Ferrari sponsorship is working out>well for their Formula 1 supercluster marketshare numbers.
Yup, though AMD actually managed to get some other teams as well. Renault and Williams were also using Opteron clusters, and I think McLaren as well (after their deal with Intel fell through). Toyota and Sauber-BMW are the only ones I know in the Intel camp on the F1-supercluster battle. I'm not really sure were Honda F1 lie, nor the little teams (Toro Rosso, Midland and Super Aguri).
I'm sure that the Sauber cluster is also working away quietly in the>background there, it's not that easy to replace that many Opterons in>one sitting. I'm sure Intel would rather they got replaced by Core 2>Xeons rather than Pentium Xeons, just to showcase their best>technology. So considering the problems Intel is having in producing>Core 2's at the moment, Sauber will likely be still running Opterons>well into next year.
The deal was announced some time ago, so I would say that Intel has already moved in a whole cluster of Xeons and/or Itaniums. They may well get upgraded to Core 2 chips over time, but I suspect Intel had some sort of cluster in there pretty early. After all, the whole Sauber/AMD deal was a bit of good marketing for AMD chips.
As for poor ol' Albert, it's tough to say what happened to him, a super-cluster in the prime of his career cut short by marketing decisions totally unrelated to his performance! Maybe he got sold to one of the above-mentioned little teams? I sure they could make good use of a 500-chip Opteron cluster!
ps. speaking of Sauber-BMW, congrats to Robert Kubica on his debut, impressive stuff for a young-un tossed in to the deep end of F1 racing... even if his success does mean the end of the line for old Jacques. Maybe it'll give Jacques more time to work on his musical career?
------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
George Macdonald wrote:> The pic here http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=149564> is not very good but I'd guess socket F... and worth noting that we have> another F1 team with Opteron cluster/server. Still dunno what happened to> Sauber's rig.
Oh BTW, AMD is going to be the title sponsor of Nascar's Watkins Glen race.
Tony Hill wrote:> Yup, though AMD actually managed to get some other teams as well.> Renault and Williams were also using Opteron clusters, and I think> McLaren as well (after their deal with Intel fell through). Toyota> and Sauber-BMW are the only ones I know in the Intel camp on the> F1-supercluster battle. I'm not really sure were Honda F1 lie, nor> the little teams (Toro Rosso, Midland and Super Aguri).
I think I heard about Renault using Opterons, didn't know about Williams. However, Mclaren had just purchased an Itanium supercluster from SGI just a couple of years back, which resulted in them losing their Sun Micro sponsorship.
As for Toro Rosso, they're probably piggybacking on Red Bull, while Super Aguri is piggybacking on BAR. Don't know who Midland can piggyback on, they have Toyota engines so maybe they also get some computing services from Toyota?
I'm sure that the Sauber cluster is also working away quietly in the> >background there, it's not that easy to replace that many Opterons in> >one sitting. I'm sure Intel would rather they got replaced by Core 2> >Xeons rather than Pentium Xeons, just to showcase their best> >technology. So considering the problems Intel is having in producing> >Core 2's at the moment, Sauber will likely be still running Opterons> >well into next year.>
The deal was announced some time ago, so I would say that Intel has> already moved in a whole cluster of Xeons and/or Itaniums. They may> well get upgraded to Core 2 chips over time, but I suspect Intel had> some sort of cluster in there pretty early. After all, the whole> Sauber/AMD deal was a bit of good marketing for AMD chips.
I can see them having Xeon chips in there, as that would be compatible with Opteron software. But I can't see them forcing Itaniums in there. Unless they started with Itanium software right from the beginning, the real choice was only Xeon.
As for poor ol' Albert, it's tough to say what happened to him, a> super-cluster in the prime of his career cut short by marketing> decisions totally unrelated to his performance! Maybe he got sold to> one of the above-mentioned little teams? I sure they could make good> use of a 500-chip Opteron cluster!
My assumption was that his brain was replaced little by little. For example, the original Opteron cluster was done by LinuxNetworx I believe. So I would think they would just remove the Opteron rackservers and slowly replace them with Xeon rackservers made by the same company? Of course with a little upgrade in air conditioning put in place too.
ps. speaking of Sauber-BMW, congrats to Robert Kubica on his debut,> impressive stuff for a young-un tossed in to the deep end of F1> racing... even if his success does mean the end of the line for old> Jacques. Maybe it'll give Jacques more time to work on his musical> career?
George Macdonald 10 August 2006 09:41:26 [ permanent link ]
On 8 Aug 2006 14:03:44 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:>> The pic here http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=149564>> is not very good but I'd guess socket F... and worth noting that we have>> another F1 team with Opteron cluster/server. Still dunno what happened to>> Sauber's rig.>
Yeah, knew about Red Bull getting themselves some Opterons. The press>release didn't make it clear how many they were buying. But Red Bull>took over the Ferrari engine deal from Sauber after they were bought by>BMW, so it looks like every customer team that Ferrari supplies, end up>going with Opteron clusters. So the Ferrari sponsorship is working out>well for their Formula 1 supercluster marketshare numbers.
Hmm, the Opteron connection may say more about Sauber's "copy" of the Ferrari chassis than anything to do with engines. I believe the Ferrari engines get delivered "sealed" anyway so not much rqt for Sauber or Red Bull to "work" with them. As for Red Bull, looks like they are trying to get Ferrari to allow the engines to go to STR next year and Flavio will get them Renault lumps to go with the Webber deal. Ah, the rebirth of umm, Mecachrome... JIT to foil Cosworth.
I'm sure that the Sauber cluster is also working away quietly in the>background there, it's not that easy to replace that many Opterons in>one sitting. I'm sure Intel would rather they got replaced by Core 2>Xeons rather than Pentium Xeons, just to showcase their best>technology. So considering the problems Intel is having in producing>Core 2's at the moment, Sauber will likely be still running Opterons>well into next year.
I guess Intel has to relent on the Itanium thingy there. The info I get from inside F1 doesn't really tell how much custom software there might be so I dunno how easy it would be to switch to Itanic; certainly the mechnical/surfacing CAD stuff is mostly off the shelf -- e.g. CATIA -- but there could be some aero/CFD which is "in-house" and then there's the stuff which is so secret nobody knows. Add in things like PTC's "decertification" of Itanium and I'd think Itanium is dead in that market... among others. Even if you don't use PTC's stuff, it's always nice to have the option without a hardware revamp.
George Macdonald wrote:> Hmm, the Opteron connection may say more about Sauber's "copy" of the> Ferrari chassis than anything to do with engines. I believe the Ferrari> engines get delivered "sealed" anyway so not much rqt for Sauber or Red> Bull to "work" with them. As for Red Bull, looks like they are trying to> get Ferrari to allow the engines to go to STR next year and Flavio will get> them Renault lumps to go with the Webber deal. Ah, the rebirth of umm,> Mecachrome... JIT to foil Cosworth.
Yeah, Sauber only talked about using it for computational fluid dynamics work. It seems like they came up with one innovation this year, using their cluster, those long vertical aerodynamic "towers" put right in the path of the driver's vision. Those were promptly banned the next race.
Next year they're going to lock down the engine specs for the whole year, and implement a rev limit on the engines.
I guess Intel has to relent on the Itanium thingy there. The info I get> from inside F1 doesn't really tell how much custom software there might be> so I dunno how easy it would be to switch to Itanic; certainly the> mechnical/surfacing CAD stuff is mostly off the shelf -- e.g. CATIA -- but> there could be some aero/CFD which is "in-house" and then there's the stuff> which is so secret nobody knows. Add in things like PTC's> "decertification" of Itanium and I'd think Itanium is dead in that> market... among others. Even if you don't use PTC's stuff, it's always> nice to have the option without a hardware revamp.
I don't know, I'm stilly pretty certain that McLaren is using SGI Itanium clusters, they just bought them a couple of years back, can't see them having them replaced already. At least not without marketing and sponsorship pressure.
Nobody@Nowhere.Net 11 August 2006 00:34:39 [ permanent link ]
On 10 Aug 2006 08:57:13 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
If you had an Oracle super-server with 8 processors, then you'd pretty>much have to fail it over to another 8 processor server sitting as>backup (at best you might be able to get away with a 4 processor server>as its backup, but not a cheap 2 processor box).
While I am more familliar with MS SQL Server than Oracle, I would prefer a cluster of 3 or 4 el cheapo 2 socket boxes to one 8 socket monster. This way, even if one of the boxes fails, the other boxes will take its workload, and the users will in worst case notice slower response time, if anything at all. If the big box goes down for whatever reason, all users go down with it, or you have to keep another big box as a hot spare. Since the 8 socket server costs waaay more than 4x2 socket, the cluster setup would be also more economically sound solution. Admittedly administering a cluster is more of pain in you know where comparing to a single box, so it all depends on particular application you are running.
George Macdonald 11 August 2006 02:10:23 [ permanent link ]
On 10 Aug 2006 09:15:48 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:>> Hmm, the Opteron connection may say more about Sauber's "copy" of the>> Ferrari chassis than anything to do with engines. I believe the Ferrari>> engines get delivered "sealed" anyway so not much rqt for Sauber or Red>> Bull to "work" with them. As for Red Bull, looks like they are trying to>> get Ferrari to allow the engines to go to STR next year and Flavio will get>> them Renault lumps to go with the Webber deal. Ah, the rebirth of umm,>> Mecachrome... JIT to foil Cosworth.>
Yeah, Sauber only talked about using it for computational fluid>dynamics work. It seems like they came up with one innovation this>year, using their cluster, those long vertical aerodynamic "towers" put>right in the path of the driver's vision. Those were promptly banned>the next race.>
Next year they're going to lock down the engine specs for the whole>year, and implement a rev limit on the engines.
What's apparently been tentatively agreed is an engine lock-down from the 2006 Chinese GP, with a 19k limit for 2008... and then the funny part: fuel economy and energy reuse. For cars which get ~1.5mpg this is hilarious - Mad Max is showing signs of taking after his father after all.
I guess Intel has to relent on the Itanium thingy there. The info I get>> from inside F1 doesn't really tell how much custom software there might be>> so I dunno how easy it would be to switch to Itanic; certainly the>> mechnical/surfacing CAD stuff is mostly off the shelf -- e.g. CATIA -- but>> there could be some aero/CFD which is "in-house" and then there's the stuff>> which is so secret nobody knows. Add in things like PTC's>> "decertification" of Itanium and I'd think Itanium is dead in that>> market... among others. Even if you don't use PTC's stuff, it's always>> nice to have the option without a hardware revamp.>
I don't know, I'm stilly pretty certain that McLaren is using SGI>Itanium clusters, they just bought them a couple of years back, can't>see them having them replaced already. At least not without marketing>and sponsorship pressure.
Could be but, with the size of McLaren's ops in their swish new umm, premises, I'm sure there are other things they could find to do with Itaniums... given available software, which is the real problem. Certainly it was Mclaren who was the intended Intel partner to be announced at Monza last year... before AMD+FIA went and spoiled the party... sending Intel off in an "incandescent" hissy fit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:10:23 -0400, George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 09:15:48 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:>>Yeah, Sauber only talked about using it for computational fluid>>dynamics work. It seems like they came up with one innovation this>>year, using their cluster, those long vertical aerodynamic "towers" put>>right in the path of the driver's vision. Those were promptly banned>>the next race.>>
Next year they're going to lock down the engine specs for the whole>>year, and implement a rev limit on the engines.>
What's apparently been tentatively agreed is an engine lock-down from the>2006 Chinese GP, with a 19k limit for 2008...
All but a done deal, it seems like a bit of a rush-job that might have a loophole or two. I suspect that we'll see a couple teams (Honda/Super Aguri in particular) playing at some funny business for the last 3 or 4 races this year.
and then the funny part: fuel>economy and energy reuse. For cars which get ~1.5mpg this is hilarious ->Mad Max is showing signs of taking after his father after all.
You noticed that too? I think the whole mass damper situation quite clearly proved that Max and Charlie have gone off the deep end. How a part that is contained 100% within the chassis can be called a movable *aerodynamic* device simply baffles the mind! Next thing you know they'll be banning drivers because, last I checked, all current F1 drivers are "moveable devices"
I don't know, I'm stilly pretty certain that McLaren is using SGI>>Itanium clusters, they just bought them a couple of years back, can't>>see them having them replaced already. At least not without marketing>>and sponsorship pressure.>
Could be but, with the size of McLaren's ops in their swish new umm,>premises, I'm sure there are other things they could find to do with>Itaniums... given available software, which is the real problem. Certainly>it was Mclaren who was the intended Intel partner to be announced at Monza>last year... before AMD+FIA went and spoiled the party... sending Intel off>in an "incandescent" hissy fit.
Interesting though that they didn't go TOO far, just left Mercedes for BMW (err, more to the point, leaving McLaren for Sauber). Maybe Intel just doesn't like British or Italian teams? Toyota and Sauber-BMW are about the only teams that aren't based in either of those two countries!
------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
nobody@nowhere.net wrote:> While I am more familliar with MS SQL Server than Oracle, I would> prefer a cluster of 3 or 4 el cheapo 2 socket boxes to one 8 socket> monster. This way, even if one of the boxes fails, the other boxes> will take its workload, and the users will in worst case notice slower> response time, if anything at all. If the big box goes down for> whatever reason, all users go down with it, or you have to keep> another big box as a hot spare. Since the 8 socket server costs waaay> more than 4x2 socket, the cluster setup would be also more> economically sound solution. Admittedly administering a cluster is> more of pain in you know where comparing to a single box, so it all> depends on particular application you are running.
Don't sweat the details here, all I'm trying to say here is that if you have an Oracle cluster, then it would be much more desirable to failover to an equivalent box. So whether the primary node has either 2, 4, or 8-processors, you'd want to failover to an equivalent performing anniversary.
George Macdonald 13 August 2006 01:19:39 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:56:48 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:10:23 -0400, George Macdonald><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:>
On 10 Aug 2006 09:15:48 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:>>>Yeah, Sauber only talked about using it for computational fluid>>>dynamics work. It seems like they came up with one innovation this>>>year, using their cluster, those long vertical aerodynamic "towers" put>>>right in the path of the driver's vision. Those were promptly banned>>>the next race.>>>
Next year they're going to lock down the engine specs for the whole>>>year, and implement a rev limit on the engines.>>
What's apparently been tentatively agreed is an engine lock-down from the>>2006 Chinese GP, with a 19k limit for 2008...>
All but a done deal, it seems like a bit of a rush-job that might have>a loophole or two. I suspect that we'll see a couple teams>(Honda/Super Aguri in particular) playing at some funny business for>the last 3 or 4 races this year.
FIA seems to be just making up the rules as they go along anyway. Now they want to have the homologated engines "submitted" after Japan or Brazil, whichever is the one after two races have been completed. The way things have been going, I'm sure Honda can arrange to have it delivered in a box... in shards. The whole thing is nuts - AIUI variable valve timing is to be banned and yet this is a common place feature of many production cars now. Homologation??... the road to mediocrity IMO... either that or Ferrari is going to be allowed to "submit" a ringer.
and then the funny part: fuel>>economy and energy reuse. For cars which get ~1.5mpg this is hilarious ->>Mad Max is showing signs of taking after his father after all.>
You noticed that too? I think the whole mass damper situation quite>clearly proved that Max and Charlie have gone off the deep end. How a>part that is contained 100% within the chassis can be called a movable>*aerodynamic* device simply baffles the mind! Next thing you know>they'll be banning drivers because, last I checked, all current F1>drivers are "moveable devices"
Yeah the aero thing is basically indirect there as I understand the rules: I figure it's more akin to the reason the Lotus 88 was banned... because it had a double suspension system, though in this case the second "suspended part" is tiny in comparison.
I don't know, I'm stilly pretty certain that McLaren is using SGI>>>Itanium clusters, they just bought them a couple of years back, can't>>>see them having them replaced already. At least not without marketing>>>and sponsorship pressure.>>
Could be but, with the size of McLaren's ops in their swish new umm,>>premises, I'm sure there are other things they could find to do with>>Itaniums... given available software, which is the real problem. Certainly>>it was Mclaren who was the intended Intel partner to be announced at Monza>>last year... before AMD+FIA went and spoiled the party... sending Intel off>>in an "incandescent" hissy fit.>
Interesting though that they didn't go TOO far, just left Mercedes for>BMW (err, more to the point, leaving McLaren for Sauber). Maybe Intel>just doesn't like British or Italian teams? Toyota and Sauber-BMW are>about the only teams that aren't based in either of those two>countries!
Hey, maybe Intel thinks i-Drive is a wonderful idea with *just* a *superb* name. If they though Ronzo was "difficult", good luck to them in dealing with Theissen.
Tony Hill wrote:> On 8 Aug 2006 21:46:11 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:> >I think I heard about Renault using Opterons, didn't know about> >Williams.>
I think the Williams deal actually came about from their (now defunct)> deal with HP. Interesting that HP would supply them with an Opteron> cluster rather than Itanium ones.
Yeah it is interesting. But it could be very simple, maybe Williams just requested Opterons, and HP didn't care what it supplied just so long as they were HPs?
However, Mclaren had just purchased an Itanium supercluster> >from SGI just a couple of years back, which resulted in them losing> >their Sun Micro sponsorship.>
Ahh, you're quite right, just last summer actually.
If McLaren had wanted Opterons, then they could've just gone to their existing sponsor, Sun, and gotten them to supply them. Although Sun hadn't yet completed work on their Galaxy servers, they were already selling rebadged Newisys boxes. It would've probably resulted in Sun staying as a sponsor of McLaren.
But what I can't figure out is if Intel got so pissed off at the FIA for taking AMD sponsorship, then why did it take it out on McLaren? And then later it just came back to the same F1 series and gave the sponsorship to BMW instead? Is McLaren somehow closer to the FIA than BMW is? I think perhaps it was just a convenient excuse to pull the sponsorship from a more expensive team and give it to a cheaper team. Intel can't be as generous with its sponsorships as it once was. Paradoxically, it looks like AMD is getting much more generous with its sponsorships. I was watching parts of the NASCAR qualifying at Watkins Glen today, and of course AMD signs were all over; that's because AMD is title sponsor of that race.
Another interesting thing, AMD has a similar sponsorship deal with NASCAR that it has with FIA. AMD is the official chip supplier to both the FIA and NASCAR.
bbbl67 wrote:> nobody@nowhere.net wrote:> > While I am more familliar with MS SQL Server than Oracle, I would> > prefer a cluster of 3 or 4 el cheapo 2 socket boxes to one 8 socket> > monster. This way, even if one of the boxes fails, the other boxes> > will take its workload, and the users will in worst case notice slower> > response time, if anything at all. If the big box goes down for> > whatever reason, all users go down with it, or you have to keep> > another big box as a hot spare. Since the 8 socket server costs waaay> > more than 4x2 socket, the cluster setup would be also more> > economically sound solution. Admittedly administering a cluster is> > more of pain in you know where comparing to a single box, so it all> > depends on particular application you are running.>
Don't sweat the details here, all I'm trying to say here is that if you> have an Oracle cluster, then it would be much more desirable to> failover to an equivalent box. So whether the primary node has either> 2, 4, or 8-processors, you'd want to failover to an equivalent> performing anniversary.
"Equivalent performing anniversary"? What the hell was I thinking here? I meant equivalent performing node.
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:19:39 -0400, George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:>On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:56:48 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>>wrote:>>All but a done deal, it seems like a bit of a rush-job that might have>>a loophole or two. I suspect that we'll see a couple teams>>(Honda/Super Aguri in particular) playing at some funny business for>>the last 3 or 4 races this year.>
FIA seems to be just making up the rules as they go along anyway. Now>they want to have the homologated engines "submitted" after Japan or>Brazil, whichever is the one after two races have been completed. The way>things have been going, I'm sure Honda can arrange to have it delivered in>a box... in shards. The whole thing is nuts - AIUI variable valve>timing is to be banned and yet this is a common place feature of many>production cars now. Homologation??... the road to mediocrity IMO...>either that or Ferrari is going to be allowed to "submit" a ringer.
Yeah. The funny thing is that the FIA keeps talking the talk about implementing things that could be beneficial to road-going cars, yet every time a technology that MIGHT make it to road going cars is invented by a team it gets banned.
One thing I just remember, F1 cars actually pioneered some energy reuse and hybrid drive technology back in the early 90's. This was very promptly banned before it ever got to be raced. Same goes for the continuously variable transmissions used on most hybrid road cars, and active suspension used on many luxury performance cars.
Some days I really wish the GPMA group had stuck to their guns and actually started up a breakaway series because the FIA is making an absolute mess of F1!
You noticed that too? I think the whole mass damper situation quite>>clearly proved that Max and Charlie have gone off the deep end. How a>>part that is contained 100% within the chassis can be called a movable>>*aerodynamic* device simply baffles the mind! Next thing you know>>they'll be banning drivers because, last I checked, all current F1>>drivers are "moveable devices" >
Yeah the aero thing is basically indirect there as I understand the rules:>I figure it's more akin to the reason the Lotus 88 was banned... because it>had a double suspension system, though in this case the second "suspended>part" is tiny in comparison.
Sometimes I can't help but think that the FIA just wants to change the rules in such a way to help their favorite team of the day, or perhaps to hurt the teams they don't like. At the moment the beneficiary seems to be Ferrari while the FIA tries to hamper the progress made by any GPMA team (basically all top teams except Ferrari).
Interesting though that they didn't go TOO far, just left Mercedes for>>BMW (err, more to the point, leaving McLaren for Sauber). Maybe Intel>>just doesn't like British or Italian teams? Toyota and Sauber-BMW are>>about the only teams that aren't based in either of those two>>countries! >
Hey, maybe Intel thinks i-Drive is a wonderful idea with *just* a *superb*>name. If they though Ronzo was "difficult", good luck to them in>dealing with Theissen.
I think this time Intel just bypassed the whole F1 operation and went straight to the top. The deal seems to be made with BMW corporate office and they forced it down the line onto the Sauber-BMW F1 team.
------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
George Macdonald wrote:>> Interesting though that they didn't go TOO far, just left Mercedes for>> BMW (err, more to the point, leaving McLaren for Sauber). Maybe Intel>> just doesn't like British or Italian teams? Toyota and Sauber-BMW are>> about the only teams that aren't based in either of those two>> countries! >
Hey, maybe Intel thinks i-Drive is a wonderful idea with *just* a *superb*> name. If they though Ronzo was "difficult", good luck to them in> dealing with Theissen.>
Beyond just writing the cheque and handing it over to the team, what possible input could Intel have on running the team? At the end of the year, if it likes the exposure it got, then it renews for next year, or it doesn't.
Sun found out its big cheque couldn't stop Ronzo from buying SGI Itaniums.
Tony Hill wrote:> Yeah. The funny thing is that the FIA keeps talking the talk about> implementing things that could be beneficial to road-going cars, yet> every time a technology that MIGHT make it to road going cars is> invented by a team it gets banned.>
One thing I just remember, F1 cars actually pioneered some energy> reuse and hybrid drive technology back in the early 90's. This was> very promptly banned before it ever got to be raced. Same goes for> the continuously variable transmissions used on most hybrid road cars,> and active suspension used on many luxury performance cars.>
Some days I really wish the GPMA group had stuck to their guns and> actually started up a breakaway series because the FIA is making an> absolute mess of F1!
The earliest instance of this happening was back in the early 80's when anti-lock brakes were being introduced into cars for the first time, they didn't make it to F1 till the early 90's! Anti-lock brakes were a hand-me-down from production car technology to F1.
If FIA really wanted to make F1 relevant to road cars, then it would've started banning all wings on these cars.
George Macdonald 14 August 2006 10:42:36 [ permanent link ]
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:49:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:>>> Interesting though that they didn't go TOO far, just left Mercedes for>>> BMW (err, more to the point, leaving McLaren for Sauber). Maybe Intel>>> just doesn't like British or Italian teams? Toyota and Sauber-BMW are>>> about the only teams that aren't based in either of those two>>> countries! >>
Hey, maybe Intel thinks i-Drive is a wonderful idea with *just* a *superb*>> name. If they though Ronzo was "difficult", good luck to them in>> dealing with Theissen.>>
Beyond just writing the cheque and handing it over to the team, what >possible input could Intel have on running the team? At the end of the >year, if it likes the exposure it got, then it renews for next year, or >it doesn't.
AIUI that's not how "sponsorship" works. For a start, F1 teams, even lower series, don't have budgets or cost accounting: you buy what you "need" to "do the job". If funds are running low, sponsors are asked to "help put the car on the front row". While I'm sure that Intel was happy about the Hungary freak "exposure", they'd better get it through their skulls that a corporate mentality/culture, e.g. BMW, cannot, never will, win races.
