5 ms·

Is SPARC unpopular because of its power consumption?

by kabdib 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago
There used to be a lot of competition between several types of RISC machine and several x86 vendors. I know about the consolidations on x86 side. I'm not sure why SPARC lost favor versus others, though. I wasn't able to afford RISC workstations back when all that was happening. It would be nice for one of older folks to chime in on what made SPARC unpopular back then.
- rcarmo 11y ago
  It was the cost/performance ratio, not of the CPU itself, but of the entire thing, including software. Sun sold highly performing, but extremely overpriced hardware that rode in on the hype it built around the architecture but failed to deliver on flexibility and bang for the buck. I was involved in launching an ISP where the whole shebang ran on Sun boxes, and which was over-dimensioned to the point where I once stepped into the data center and found a waist-high box full of E250/E450... Feet. The purple plastic ones you had to remove to rack mount the things. Two years later we'd shrunk down most of the whole thing (except the storage bits, where SPARC still had good performance) to a few racks of Compaq and Dell boxes that were vastly cheaper to maintain (both because they were cheaper, period, and because we didn't need to wrestle with Solaris and the compilers of the time to get stuff working on them). This was back in 1999 or so, and I never saw a SPARC system in production after 2005 (until a few months back when I visited a telco customer who still swears by them for a very specific purpose). I still have one of those plastic feet on my desk at home, as a reminder of the folly of buying single-vendor solutions. It sucks as a paperweight. :)
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Thanks for the enlightening comment. That makes plenty of sense. It's part of the reason I didn't try to buy one: price/performance numbers just didn't make sense.

5 ms·

Is SPARC unpopular because of its power consumption?

by kabdib 11y ago

Is SPARC unpopular because of its power consumption?

nickpsecurity 11y ago
There used to be a lot of competition between several types of RISC machine and several x86 vendors. I know about the consolidations on x86 side. I'm not sure why SPARC lost favor versus others, though. I wasn't able to afford RISC workstations back when all that was happening. It would be nice for one of older folks to chime in on what made SPARC unpopular back then.
- rcarmo 11y ago
  It was the cost/performance ratio, not of the CPU itself, but of the entire thing, including software. Sun sold highly performing, but extremely overpriced hardware that rode in on the hype it built around the architecture but failed to deliver on flexibility and bang for the buck. I was involved in launching an ISP where the whole shebang ran on Sun boxes, and which was over-dimensioned to the point where I once stepped into the data center and found a waist-high box full of E250/E450... Feet. The purple plastic ones you had to remove to rack mount the things. Two years later we'd shrunk down most of the whole thing (except the storage bits, where SPARC still had good performance) to a few racks of Compaq and Dell boxes that were vastly cheaper to maintain (both because they were cheaper, period, and because we didn't need to wrestle with Solaris and the compilers of the time to get stuff working on them). This was back in 1999 or so, and I never saw a SPARC system in production after 2005 (until a few months back when I visited a telco customer who still swears by them for a very specific purpose). I still have one of those plastic feet on my desk at home, as a reminder of the folly of buying single-vendor solutions. It sucks as a paperweight. :)
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Thanks for the enlightening comment. That makes plenty of sense. It's part of the reason I didn't try to buy one: price/performance numbers just didn't make sense.