SUMMARY: SF 1280 vs 4800

Thanks to following people. Below comments from them. At the end -
original question.

Christopher Saul

Since most of the 1280s we sell go in a Sun Cluster config, which gives
you high availability with a good price, the 1280 is really the best
option to go for, unless you really need the domains or the extreme
availability of the 4800.

Major diffs are -

1280

12RUs, non redundant fireplane, 1.5GB/se I/O BW, internal storage, 6 PCI
slots, no domains, 3500W, not full H/W redundancy.

4800

17.5RUs, redundant fireplane, 4.8Gb/sec I/O BW, no internal storage,
16PCI/8cPCI slots, domains, 3920W, full H/W redundancy.


Alex Madden

The 3800 was discontinuted because the 1280 was percieved to eat its
lunch,


Cole Oshaughnessy

Sun appears to have built the V1280 to EOL the F4800.  I suspect
the F4800 will be end of lifed rather soon.  The V1280 has a
much smaller
footprint than the F4800, the upgrade boards are cheaper [list
price wise
anyhow], and you can fit several in a Cabinet, where as in the
case of the
F4800, only one could be installed per Cabinet.  I don't have
any
documents to point you to, but that is all the information that
I can
provide you with at this time.


Tom Jones

We just purchased three V1280s instead of 4800s.  Since we
didn't need
the domaining functionality, the lower cost of the V1280s was
the
primary factor for chosing them.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:56:13AM +0000, przemolicc@poczta.fm wrote:
> Is there any doc/link/white paper about comparison of
> SF 1280 and SF 4800 from performance/reliablility
> point of view ?
> 
> Any experience using _both_ servers ?
> 
> It seems that (with a few exceptions like domains etc)
> both servers are comparable and 1280 is a competitor
> for 4800. Any thoughts ?
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers