[rescue] E450 for pickup and 4/110

Ahmed Ewing aewing at gmail.com
Fri May 11 16:11:09 CDT 2007

On 5/11/07, Earl D. Baugh Jr. <earl at baugh.org> wrote:
> On May 11, 2007, at 2:06 PM, rescue-request at sunhelp.org wrote:
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:05:13 -0400
> > From: "Ahmed Ewing" <aewing at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [rescue] Free E450 for Pickup
> > To: "The Rescue List" <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> > Message-ID:
> >       <ad3c09600705110705t6e09842fuafc8ed7fda8838dd at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > On 5/11/07, Aaron Finley <aaronfinley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/10/07, Harold Berninghausen <haroldkarl at juno.com> wrote:
> >>> hate to pick nits, but the E450 never worked with 450 mhz
> >>> processors...
> >>> either 400's or 480's...
> >>>
> >>> I just had to respond...
> >>
> >> But no one said that it did.. (?)
> >>
> > Actually someone did say this--in a different thread though ("E450
> > and 4/110").
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > -A
> Yes, I am the one who listed 450 instead of 480.   I'm a terrible
> person.  Revoke my rescue
> license.
> I did indicate that it had to be a BA chassis instead of a AA, so
> would have
> hoped that would have indicated that I did at least know something about
> the E450 (and that I had probably made a mental hiccup from the model
> to the CPU speed).

Personally, I was just fueling the fire with tongue planted firmly
in-cheek. :-) No offense intended, we tend to pick a lot of nits
'round here.

> Since I am on the topic of chassis, I would remind folks that the AA
> chassis did
> not support all of the expansion that the BA and CA did.  When we
> were looking for another
> E450 at my old work  ( as a hot backup) and found a bunch of 450's
> that at the time were cheap,
> and almost purchased one until I got some info from a Sun reseller
> that I've worked with who
> clued me in that they were cheap because they were AA's....

I'm curious about the chassis designations... isn't the system board
part number more deterministic of the expansion capability than the
chassis? Or is the assumption here that certain chassis types only
carried certain system board revisions (and perhaps extra disk
backplane expansions)?

The reason I bring this up is because during the course of service, I
can say firsthand that zero regard is ever paid to these AA/BA/CA
designations. This would seem somewhat like reading the "SvCd"
markings on the outside edge of a SS5 chassis and assuming the specs
within are correct (i.e., the board was never replaced/upgraded)
without examining the contents.

Just a thought... maybe I'm missing something here.



More information about the rescue mailing list