Differnence between HP servers...

[SM_3]

1)What are the main differences between HP and Sun servers?

I'm aware that HP had HP-PB and Sun had Sbus but now it's PCI.

I'm not really talking about at software level (except the BootAdmin and OK promt's).

We are in the process of buying more servers?

thanks

[Mel Burslan]

well, this is like asking compare PCs to MACs. If the one making the comparison is someone like who did the Linux-to-MSwindows comparison (Gartner ??) they can skew the results as much as they like. But most people here being seasoned HPUX veterans, I am sure they can tell you how great HP servers over their Sun counterparts.

The answer to your question depends, like in any other platform/configuraton comparison, on what you want to do with the HP and/or Sun server ? Will it be a database host ? web server ? application server ? file server ?

Sun hardware is known to be better than their HP counterparts (read as "faster") when it comes to network communications, whereas HP beats Sun when it comes to number crunching or database churning.

when it comes to technicality, both servers run on variants of unix sysVr4. the basic commands are similar yet different.

This is my 2 cents of contribution.

[A. Clay Stephenson]

Biggest difference is that Sun's use the SPARC chip and HP's use either PA-RISC or Intel Itanium --- this is really relatively unimportant because most UNIX servers are not CPU bound.

In the UNIX world, very seldom does the hardware itself directly drive the purchasing decision. It's generally driven by software availability, reliability, availability or service in your area, --- and in many cases simply preference of those in the decision loop. Another decision driver is which product line does your principal application vendor primarily develop in. For example, if your widget software developer first ports new releases and patches to HP-UX, it might be weeks before the same patch is available for Solaris. The converse is equally true.

I'm going on like this only to tell you that you are really not asking the right question yet.

[RAC_1]

http://bhami.com/rosetta.html

The main difference I find is that HP is superioir to sun. I also find it more user friendly. That what I think.

Anil

[generic_1]

In terms of high availability with HP MC/Serviceguard and the redundancy built into some lines of HP hardware make it very attractive. Also it has awsome database performance :).

Sun is well known for network and web applications. Since that is one of its stong points that may be a good reason for going to Sun.

Do check what your software vendors support best too.

[Steven E. Protter]

I think the question is pretty broad. Note that serviceguard is a paid add in product to the HP-UX OS.

I agree with most of what A. Clay says plus:

An important difference at this point is service. I have dealt with a number of software and hardware vendors and find HP's hardware and software service the best I've found. They transitioned nicely inot the Internet era and stand strong behind their customers.

I've talked to a dozen people from mixed Sun/HP shops and their experience subjectively is that HP is more reliable.

Also, a look at the organizations is important. Though I referred to the recent merger as a big whale eating another to become a much more bloated whale, what remains is a large, strong organization.

I wonder whether Sun is going to be around in its current form to support their products.

My view is baised, and my own.

SEP

[G. Vrijhoeven]

Hi,

You are aware of the fact that you ask this question in the HPUX forum... I think HPUX is more user/admin friendly, but SUN also has some advantages. I would look at stuff like what OS do your admins/you prefere managing ( experience/education ) and what are you currently using. It is more easy to admin 100 servers that are identical, the 10 different server.

HTH,

Gideon

[Dani Seely · Accepted solution]

This is SUCH a broad question ...

You will get biased opinions from so many different angles, especially in an HP forum.

What is your background and why are you asking this question? What is the task at hand? To respond only to that which you have stated, SUN has A LOT more to offer for rack mounting options (Sun Fire), where as HP seems to be more into floor or table top systems (L1000, L2000, etc).

Also, take a look at the article, "Unix Wars: Sun Vs. HP Sun's Andrew Ingram sees hot race ahead" at:
http://www.varbusiness.com/98pages/andy_ingram.asp

Hope this helps. Good luck. I'll check back in hopes to see if you add more details.

[Alzhy]

As our friend Nicholas Carr has so valiantly maintained (IT does it Matter - IT is no longer Relevant!) -- I believe the same holds true for HW/CPU Selection as practically everything is commoditized these days (read. c.h.e.a.p or getting cheaper) -- the bootom line is go with the vendor/platform/hw/cpu that meets your affordability, availability and serviceability requirements.

The performance differences between Sun/IBM/HP platforms are all but insignificant these days. And as always, CPU Horsepower (Ghz) does not always gurantee overall system performance.

And Administration - wise, UNIX/Linux systems have become increasingly easy to manage and administer these days.. SAM (on HP), SMITTY (AIX), Contol Center Applets on LINUX) and the now useful "SMC" of Solaris offer varying degrees of ease and functionality. However, a large number of shops are now going with "Webmin" a Web-based admin tool that offers the same look and feel accross the dialects.. In fact HP-UX now do bundle Webmin....

[SM_3]

I'd like to know more about the architectural differences if possible? ( this is more for me than for deciding which servers to purchase).

Servers will be used for:
1)database(s)
2)web server
3)mail server
4)file server

[Ted Buis]

Most people say to pick the application software first and then to pick the hardware.
Naturally, if the software will not run, that eliminates the hardware. Here are some reasons to chose HP.
1) HP has a great track record for protecting customer value with in-box processor upgrades.
2) The latest HP9000 pa-risc (pa-8800) systems are easily upgraded to Itanium 2 processors, as they use an Itanium 2 bus and the same chipsets. The pa-8900 processor will also provide a growth path for customers staying on pa-risc.
3) HP Integrity servers are based on the Intel Itanium 2 processors and offer better performance, better price/performance and a choice of operating system environment, from HP-UX, Windows 20003 64-bit, and 64-bit LINUX from RedHat and SuSe, thus providing more flexibility and adaptability in the future.
4) Sun is having business issues (losses and declining revenue) that must be considered. Sun dropped UltraSPARC V development, and the new UltraSPARC IV didn't improve per core performance.
5) The faster Itanium 2 are more cost effective for Oracle and other software that is licensed by CPU, so you get more useful work done per CPU core for your license. Licenses for Oracle can be a major cost factor for an Oracle DB server.
6) HP Integrity servers lead SUN in most benchmarks. See www.tpc.org or TPC-C and TPC-H and www.specbench.org for other results, which is the proof point for any architecture superiority claims.