SEO

I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.

Thanks,

Abid

akhan@att.net wrote:
> I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Abid
>
PIII 1.4GHz But they will be hard to find. Check SuperMicro. Intel still
manufactures PIII's but they only sell them to OEM's.

<akhan@att.net> wrote in message
news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
> I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Abid
>
Why stop at PIII. I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than 4
years and have never had a problem (even on the Xeon chip). Yes, I know
Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but my
experience has been nothing but good when using them. I have seen nary a
single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them right
now.

Take it for what it's worth. Action speaks louder than words.

JP

On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...> I have a client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Abid
>
> Why stop at PIII. I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than 4
> years and have never had a problem (even on the Xeon chip). Yes, I know
> Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but my
> experience has been nothing but good when using them. I have seen nary a
> single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them right
> now.
>
> Take it for what it's worth. Action speaks louder than words.
>
> JP

Thanks JP and Steve,

I end up going to the site to check some other stuff, It turns out
that they have 5.0.6 so now I guess I will have no problem running on
P4 (Xeon chip).

Abid

<akhan@att.net> wrote in message
news:1171373753.784135.295060@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > <a...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...> I have a
client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
> > > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> > > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> > > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > > Abid
> >
> > Why stop at PIII. I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than
4
> > years and have never had a problem (even on the Xeon chip). Yes, I
know
> > Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but
my
> > experience has been nothing but good when using them. I have seen nary
a
> > single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them
right
> > now.
> >
> > Take it for what it's worth. Action speaks louder than words.
> >
> > JP
>
> Thanks JP and Steve,
>
> I end up going to the site to check some other stuff, It turns out
> that they have 5.0.6 so now I guess I will have no problem running on
> P4 (Xeon chip).
>
> Abid
>
>
Glad you're able to move up the food chain.

Now, for all of you inquisitors who are scared to death to move to a P4
because of SCO's TA, take me at my word. I have plenty of 5.0.5 machines
running on a P4 processor; I have never experienced a single problem or
issue regarding the hardware on any of those machines; many of the machines
are in production mode 24/7 and have been running for more than 4 years. Is
this an iron-clad guarantee that they won't fail? Definitely not. But,
experience tells me that the over-heating issue with the Xeon chip and 5.0.5
is not as serious as some would have you believe.

Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip. Maybe
run a few trials or whatever. But, don't be afraid to try it just because
some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem. The keyword here is 'might'.
They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem. It's
not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
experienced in their testing. And as we all know, testing usually stresses
machines to the absolute limits, where-as, normal runs occupy maybe 30% of a
machines capacities.

If you have an application that absolutely crunches the machine at max
capacity, then you probably need to do some testing, but otherwise, try it,
you might like it.

JP

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:57:01 GMT, "JP" <piperent@swbell.net> wrote:

>
><akhan@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1171373753.784135.295060@q2g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> > <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...> I have a
>client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
>> > > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
>> > > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
>> > > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.

<snipped>

>Glad you're able to move up the food chain.
>
>Now, for all of you inquisitors who are scared to death to move to a P4
>because of SCO's TA, take me at my word. I have plenty of 5.0.5 machines
>running on a P4 processor; I have never experienced a single problem or
>issue regarding the hardware on any of those machines; many of the machines
>are in production mode 24/7 and have been running for more than 4 years. Is
>this an iron-clad guarantee that they won't fail? Definitely not. But,
>experience tells me that the over-heating issue with the Xeon chip and 5.0.5
>is not as serious as some would have you believe.
>

Thanks JP. This thread is really interesting to me because I have a
few legacy clients still running on SCO 5.0.5 (on Pentium II's
actually !) who are quite happy with what they've got but hardware age
and breakdown is a real issue.

I seem to remember a thread quite some time ago where you (JP ) were
wondering about this and Bella indicated there shouldn't really be a
problem, theoretically (? I'm paraphrasing wildly here).

I'm really glad to hear this because it gives me more options in terms
of upgrading. Thanks again for the info.

"JP" <piperent@swbell.net> (and is that a new address for JPR???) wrote:

> Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip. Maybe
> run a few trials or whatever. But, don't be afraid to try it just because
> some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem. The keyword here is 'might'.
> They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem. It's
> not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
> experienced in their testing. ^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not as far as I know. SCO Engineering was told that P4 processors might
overheat if certain code changes weren't made, so we made those changes.
These were pretty pervasive changes, a supplement incorporating them
would have to replace most of the OS and it would require full OS
testing. That was too much effort for 5.0.5, which had already been
shipping for a while by then, so we only did a version of the changes
for 5.0.6 (and of course they were in place from the start on 5.0.7).

This stuff came down as an erratum warning from Intel, and our reaction
was based purely on that, not on actual testing failures (as far as I
knew at the time).

>Bela<

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> "JP" <piperent@swbell.net> (and is that a new address for JPR???) wrote:
>
> > Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip. Maybe
> > run a few trials or whatever. But, don't be afraid to try it just because
> > some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem. The keyword here is 'might'.
> > They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem. It's
> > not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
> > experienced in their testing. ^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not as far as I know. SCO Engineering was told that P4 processors might
> overheat if certain code changes weren't made, so we made those changes.
> These were pretty pervasive changes, a supplement incorporating them
> would have to replace most of the OS and it would require full OS
> testing. That was too much effort for 5.0.5, which had already been
> shipping for a while by then, so we only did a version of the changes
> for 5.0.6 (and of course they were in place from the start on 5.0.7).
>
> This stuff came down as an erratum warning from Intel, and our reaction
> was based purely on that, not on actual testing failures (as far as I
> knew at the time).

And I have burn't up a P4 with OpenServer 5.0.5. I do not remember the
details right now. But I would strongly urge caution using 5.0.5 with a
P4.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

Bela Lubkin typed (on Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 01:16:56PM -0800):
| "JP" <piperent@swbell.net> (and is that a new address for JPR???) wrote:

"'tis not I", said Cock Robin...


--
JP

On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171373753.784135.295060@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...> On Feb 10, 10:06 am, "JP" <piper...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > <a...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1171034965.501078.105560@j27g2000cwj.googleg roups.com...> I have a
>
> client who wants to upgrade the hardware, they want to stay
>
>
>
> > > > with Open Server 5.0.5, I am thinking about PIII machine with single
> > > > processor, what is the maximum size Processor 5.0.5 supports, any
> > > > specific brand name/model. I have used HP/Compaq Proliant in the past.
>
> > > > Thanks,
>
> > > > Abid
>
> > > Why stop at PIII. I've been running 5.0.5 on Pentium 4's for more than
> 4
> > > years and have never had a problem (even on the Xeon chip). Yes, I
> know
> > > Xeon is supposed to have problems with any release prior to 5.0.6, but
> my
> > > experience has been nothing but good when using them. I have seen nary
> a
> > > single fried CPU yet, and I must have 15 or more clients running them
> right
> > > now.
>
> > > Take it for what it's worth. Action speaks louder than words.
>
> > > JP
>
> > Thanks JP and Steve,
>
> > I end up going to the site to check some other stuff, It turns out
> > that they have 5.0.6 so now I guess I will have no problem running on
> > P4 (Xeon chip).
>
> > Abid
>
> Glad you're able to move up the food chain.
>
> Now, for all of you inquisitors who are scared to death to move to a P4
> because of SCO's TA, take me at my word. I have plenty of 5.0.5 machines
> running on a P4 processor; I have never experienced a single problem or
> issue regarding the hardware on any of those machines; many of the machines
> are in production mode 24/7 and have been running for more than 4 years. Is
> this an iron-clad guarantee that they won't fail? Definitely not. But,
> experience tells me that the over-heating issue with the Xeon chip and 5.0.5
> is not as serious as some would have you believe.
>
> Each of us has to use our own good judgement regarding the Xeon chip. Maybe
> run a few trials or whatever. But, don't be afraid to try it just because
> some TA says you 'MIGHT' experience a problem. The keyword here is 'might'.
> They don't say you 'will', they say you 'could' experience a problem. It's
> not a prohibition against use, it's only an advisory of something they
> experienced in their testing. And as we all know, testing usually stresses
> machines to the absolute limits, where-as, normal runs occupy maybe 30% of a
> machines capacities.
>
> If you have an application that absolutely crunches the machine at max
> capacity, then you probably need to do some testing, but otherwise, try it,
> you might like it.
>
> JP- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

JP,

I feel much better now, I will definitely go with a P4 (Xeon) for this
customer, thanks for sharing your experience.

Abid