US Government says no to Woodcrest

[VulgarHandle]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32842

WoodCrest systems were delivered for an evaluation for one of the US government departments, and it all ended up in tears, with Woodcrest being rejected in the first round of trials. The reason was that there were severe problems when Woodcrest was paired with a 1E RAID field when using IBM ServeRAID controllers. The problems didn't occur just in benchmarking, it was the every-day usage model that produced unexpected errors.

ouch, didn't even seem to give woodcrest a second chance....

[LOE]

my oh my...

[The Ghost]

i wonder what this will do to intel's sgi and google contracts ?

intel does more damage to it's self then amd does to intel

the problem seems that intel already knew about this problem

[Baldrick]

AMD wont be complaining. :p:

[Rovtar]

lol wtf are they doing :S

[thorgal]

And they couldn't see this coming :nono:

Boy, this will come down hard :slapass:

[freecableguy]

this is government money guys, it won't be appropriated for final use for years....lol (am i the only one that has even worked with government budgeting?)

[dnavarro]

That doesn't alleve my concerns over this FCG. My Company WAS about to by Woodcrest servers but now we may have to sort this all out... :/ We absolutely have to have working RAID5.

Damn Intel. Looks like Opterons again.


D

[perkam]

That doesn't alleve my concerns over this FCG. My Company WAS about to by Woodcrest servers but now we may have to sort this all out... :/ We absolutely have to have working RAID5.

Damn Intel. Looks like Opterons again.


DI hope you wait for Socket F opterons if you are going down the route again :)

Perkam

[nn_step]

Strange, I would have thought they rejected it based on the grounds of Intel's TPM being integrated into the CPU.
I hope you wait for Socket F opterons if you are going down the route again :)

Perkam
and yep I would have to completely agree with you. :D

[dnavarro]

We most likely will be waiting to sort this all out. We had orders for our Woodcrest chips ready to go as of a few days ago, but I want to wait this out and get more details on the problem. My preference is to stay intel, but Socket F would be the next choice.

Hopefully over the next few weeks I can find out more about this issue. We won't have much longer then that before we have to make a decision. :/

D

[uOpt]

Duh, this is just some random PCIe or PCI-X BIOS bug.

It's not really possible that the new CPU architecture "disables RAID5".

My IQ dropped 10 points just from opening this thread :nut:

[LowRun]

Duh, this is just some random PCIe or PCI-X BIOS bug.

It's not really possible that the new CPU architecture "disables RAID5".

My IQ dropped 10 points just from opening this thread :nut:

I suppose they would have fixed it in no time if it was that trivial.

[uOpt]

It's till bullsh1t just like the other report.

Who gives a hovering donkey about whether one particular harddrive controller works or not in a pre-release platorm.

[VulgarHandle]

but wouldn't whoever was presenting that platform had done their best to provide the most stable platform possible? what does that say for the company, much less the platform?

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Who gives a hovering donkey about whether one particular harddrive controller works or not in a pre-release platorm.


obviously the US government smartguy.

[FUGGER]

"one" US government is so general, was it dod, doe, doi, local, state, military, or education?

BS IMO, this is what fanboys live for. I know the government doesnt have a bat phone to the inquirer disclosing information on trade secret assets if this were real.

[LOE]

yo the government is so fanboish :)

or it could be BS, it's theinq after all