4 ms·

I'm just wondering if "those systems" include any present-day x86 servers. If not, then it's safe to say they're a red herring, since this whole discussion is b

by mmt 8y ago

I'm just wondering if "those systems" include any present-day x86 servers. If not, then it's safe to say they're a red herring, since this whole discussion is based on an article about, specifically, Intel CPUs.

close04 8y ago
I now see that the content is behind a paywall but the title is still visible. It's a statistic for 2017/2018: > Share of servers with four or more hours of unplanned downtime due to hardware flaws worldwide in 2017/2018, by hardware platform Systems like IBM's System Z had 0 servers with more than 4 hours unplanned downtime over this period. At the other end Cisco and Fujitsu x86 servers had ~16% of servers experiencing 4 or more hours of unplanned downtime over the period. We can infer that the vast majority of the x86 machines will be Intel considering AMD's market share in the server space. P.S. The article is about Intel's ME flaws and patches so probably our whole discussion branched off in the wrong direction :).
- mmt 8y ago
  > P.S. The article is about Intel's ME flaws and patches so probably our whole discussion branched off in the wrong direction :). Maybe that's why I was confused? I thought we were talking about commodity, x86 servers all along, particularly the GGP about "where uptime really matters" and other comments by the same person about warranty lengths (which seemed irrelevant, other than being indicative of commodity hardware). Of course, that commenter's very terse remarks, combining "safety", "uptime", and "insurance" (and, later, billions in damages) into an environment where commodity (or not?) x86 servers are proactively replaced started me off in a state of confusion, like there was some very major assumption about the system design that I (and everyone else here, too, it seems) was missing.

4 ms·

I'm just wondering if "those systems" include any present-day x86 servers. If not, then it's safe to say they're a red herring, since this whole discussion is b

by mmt 8y ago

close04 8y ago
I now see that the content is behind a paywall but the title is still visible. It's a statistic for 2017/2018: > Share of servers with four or more hours of unplanned downtime due to hardware flaws worldwide in 2017/2018, by hardware platform Systems like IBM's System Z had 0 servers with more than 4 hours unplanned downtime over this period. At the other end Cisco and Fujitsu x86 servers had ~16% of servers experiencing 4 or more hours of unplanned downtime over the period. We can infer that the vast majority of the x86 machines will be Intel considering AMD's market share in the server space. P.S. The article is about Intel's ME flaws and patches so probably our whole discussion branched off in the wrong direction :).
- mmt 8y ago
  > P.S. The article is about Intel's ME flaws and patches so probably our whole discussion branched off in the wrong direction :). Maybe that's why I was confused? I thought we were talking about commodity, x86 servers all along, particularly the GGP about "where uptime really matters" and other comments by the same person about warranty lengths (which seemed irrelevant, other than being indicative of commodity hardware). Of course, that commenter's very terse remarks, combining "safety", "uptime", and "insurance" (and, later, billions in damages) into an environment where commodity (or not?) x86 servers are proactively replaced started me off in a state of confusion, like there was some very major assumption about the system design that I (and everyone else here, too, it seems) was missing.