Why not NT clusters? Need arguments.

[Dan Yocum]

Jon Tegner wrote:
> 
> In a disussion of clusters I got the question why not using systems
> running microsoft NT. I only came up with cost and stability in a
> sweeping way, and I couldnt present more quantitative arguments. Later,


And that wasn't enough?  

Point out application porting feasibility - if you have an app that runs
on *nix, then porting that app to Linux is far, FAR easier than porting
it to NT. One example, some CDF data analysis code (at Fermilab) was
about 1M lines long that ran on IRIX.  People estimated the port could
be done in a year - it took a grad student 3 weeks.  

Then, again, if you've got an NT app, it will be difficult to port that
to Linux, so you may want to stick with NT.


> I even found that an nt cluster sits on place 207 on the top500 list
> (see http://www.top500.org/lists/TOP500List.php3?Y=2000&M=06)
> is that an exception, or are there many of these beasts around?


Check out how many linux cluster are far above that on the list...
actually, I'm sure you'll find many more Linux clusters there than NT
clusters.

Cheers,
Dan

-- 
Dan Yocum, Sr. Linux Consultant
Linuxcare, Inc.
630.697.8066 tel
yocum at linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com

Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.