Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:19 UTC
Windows The rumours about Windows possibly being ported to ARM has left a lot of people bewildered; why would you port Windows NT when Windows CE 6.0 is a perfectly capable operating system? Putting all the pieces together, it's actually quite clear why you would want Windows NT on ARM: servers.
Thread beginning with comment 454630
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

PLus, I've heard the ARM server rumours as well, but I don't believe they will be a viable option. There is today, not a market for ARM based servers.


Yes there is. It's not going to replace x86-64 overnight, but Linux deployments make up a significant portion of server sales. Linux deployments mostly don't need to worry about the CPU architecture.

I know I could replace a significant number of x86-64 servers with ARM without any problems, and the power savings are likely enough to make it worthwhile. I don't believe my situation is at all unique.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What do you mean by "Without any problems"? You haven't benchmarked any of the ARM servers for your load, because they don't exist. How do you know these mythical servers will be able to handle the current load of your x86-64 servers?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

What do you mean by "Without any problems"? You haven't benchmarked any of the ARM servers for your load, because they don't exist.


I was talking from a provisioning & operational standpoint. Whether a particular server can handle the load you intend for it applies to any CPU, no matter if it's ARM or x86-64.

If it helps, the majority of my x86-64 servers are virtual machines with very low CPU usage profiles: I have some physical hosts running multiple KVM instances where the Munin graph for CPU usage is basically non-existent.

Reply Parent Score: 4