tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17375431.post114135755086696860..comments2012-02-10T14:54:49.773-07:00Rahul Soodhttps://profiles.google.com/113741407720209727435noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17375431.post-1141387324626271922006-03-03T05:02:00.000-07:002006-03-03T05:02:00.000-07:00I agree that Sun is the natural and best choice at the moment. In fact, I bet Sun is the choice, but you'll notice I said "in the future". <BR/><BR/>I believe Dell is hedging their bets by building a relationship with Google now so in the future they can spring a deal on them.Rahul Soodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04044495881654002289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17375431.post-1141371285867942832006-03-03T00:34:00.000-07:002006-03-03T00:34:00.000-07:00Mr. Sood, the only natural choice of provider for the Google servers is Sun Microsystems.<BR/><BR/>1) Sun has ample experience in high performance servers, Dell if anything, has experience in the lowest server end.<BR/><BR/>2) Sun is large enough to cater to Google's every need, Dell is big, but doesn't even remotely have the high-end server personnel or resources to take care of a huge customer such as Google<BR/><BR/>3) I think Google will not want to spread its purchases among many competitors. My analysis tells me that combinatorial problems should be very important at Google, so, it would be more natural to choose only one provider.<BR/><BR/>4) Sun Microsystems is really doing awesome computers based in Opterons, far better than those from HP or IBM.<BR/><BR/>5) We have to remember that HP is too focused (distracted?) in Itanium to really push high end x86 servers (Opterons, I mean), and IBM is devoting less and less energy to the hardware businesses.<BR/><BR/>Other than that, allow me to congratulate you on your excellent blog, very enjoyable.<BR/><BR/>This is "Chicagrafo"<BR/>http://chicagrafo.blogspot.comEddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08650564289231188833noreply@blogger.com