Re: IBM will announce two new System i models, 515 and 525 on Apr. 10.

[Larry Bolhuis <lbolhuis@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Then before you speak you need to understand what it means.

*ALL* CPW when measured since it was invented is on a system with 
maximum configurations of memory and disk. As we all know there will be 
bottlenecks in any application. Some are disk, some memory, some CPU and 
some are combinations of these. In the case of the 515 you can cram in 
only 16GB (seems odd to be saying 'only' and '16GB' and 'Memory' in one 
phrase) as well as a maximum of 8 disk units. So it's likely that while 
the CPU itself is capable of 3800 CPW (and is not running with 7/10ths 
of it's cycles tied behind it's back, just to make it fair)  it may be 
constrained by the limited number of disk arms, disk cache, and memory 
present in the configuration.

Specs here:  
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_sp/n/ISD03001USEN/ISD03001USEN.PDF

As an aside if you want to cram 16GB of memory in a Windoze box be 
prepared to shell out about $10K for the 'Enterprise' version of WinDOHs 
you will need to be able to use that memory.

  - Larry

Lukas Beeler wrote:
> Read this:
>
> http://projectdream.org/~lb/i515.pdf
>
> It says "constrained CPW" 800. I have no idea what that really means
> (since the document itself doesn't explain it)
>
> I just assumed it works similar as to the accelerator feature of the
> 520+.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Bolhuis
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:08 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: IBM will announce two new System i models, 515 and 525 on
> Apr. 10.
>
> Lukas I believe you are wrong. I don't know where you got the 800 CPW
> from.
>
> The 515 runs 'wide open' at 3,800 CPW and is capped only by user count. 
> You may purchase a second CPU to get you to approx 7,100 CPW. 
>
>   - Larry
>
> Lukas Beeler wrote:
>   
> > It's 800 CPW. The CPU can be bumped to 3800 CPW, no idea how much that
> > costs, though.
> >
> >   
> >