Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora, Debian, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    In the very same interview he said kernel is bloated and huge but there is not problem with stability.
    "I think we've been pretty stable,"
    "We are finding the bugs as fast as we're adding them even though we're adding more code."

    So you imply that Linux is buggy because it is bloated, while Linus in the very same post you mentioned says this is not a fact.
    So while Linux is bloated and huge, is not buggy. So the problem of bloatness has to do with difficulty to maintain a large amount of code (fortunately kernel has many developers) andmainly a large amount of unecessary code, which while it's still bad doesn't affect Linux' performance.
    And Linus was according to some old, previous Linux' versions.

    Comment


    • #47
      Bloated compared to Linux 2.x code lines etc. Some people don't understand this:

      No one would argue with Linus on the status and well being of the kernel, but it’s so easy to take “bloated” out of context. How does it compare to the Windows or BSD kernels? He’s not saying that the kernel is bad or inefficient, just that it’s not as neat and clean as it perhaps could, or should be.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        I won't feed you more in this thread. Linux handles many mission critical systems and most demanding workloads, so you're just making fool of yourself.
        We all agree that Linux handles many critical systems and demanding workloads. No one questions this claim, it is true. Yes, Linux is good enough to do that. But Linux is not best. There are better OS out there. Or do you rank Linux above IBM z/OS Mainframes, HP-UX, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, OpenVMS? Do you think Linux is the most stable OS there is? There is no better? You do not agree that there are better OSes than Linux?

        I am not saying that Linux is bad, it is not. It is for instance, far better and more stable than the best Windows version. But Linux is not that perfect that every Linux zealot seems to believe, it has it's flaws. Linux is not flawless. There are better OSes out there. Not counting Solaris, I would use Linux only. I use Ubuntu at home, and like it. But, Linux has some bugs and is not that stable, alas.

        Personally, I think Linux is very good for Unix. Because if Linux did not exist, everyone would use Windows. From Windows, the step to Unix is too big. But now, even Windows people runs Linux. And from Linux to Unix, the step is quite small. So, Unix potential user base has grown tremendously, because there are so many Linux users out there.

        See for instance this company, full of Linux zealots, that switch to OpenSolaris:
        http://blogs.digitar.com/jjww/2008/0...izing-storage/
        If they had run Windows, the switch would have been more unlikely.


        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        You never started a new thread when asked, so your intention is to pollute this thread. It's enough for me to know Orvar Korvar is a big troll.
        I wrote that Phoronix should try the latest OpenSolaris build in this benchmark. For that, you attacked me, called me a Troll. And I had to defend myself, or do you rather I be quiet so you can call others name, freely? And then you continued harassing me. And I defended. And you continued. Then, suddenly you say that I should start a new thread. Maybe you wanted to hide all your harassment in another thread? You thought not many people will read another thread, but many reads this benchmark? And I said YOU can start YOUR thread, if you wish. Because I refused to obey you, you say that I "want to pollute this thread" and call me "big troll". Not really fair, to me.

        Everything is written here, recorded in the posts. Just read them in this thread, and see if I speak true, or false.


        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        I provided you many examples, but it's not my problem you don't understand a thing.
        I've told you that we think differently. I can not follow your thoughts, you need to explain them to me. I have said this to you, many a times. To no avail. You still refuse to explain what you mean. Why do you refuse to explain what you mean, instead of "read all links, and you will understand what I mean"? What links, there are no links! You have posted many links earlier, but which of them do you refer to? And what do you want me to understand? You dont explain what you are trying to tell me. I have no clue.


        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        It exists even on bigger machines - 512, 1024CPUs. It scales up to 4096CPUs and Solaris probably don't even scale up to 512CPUs. It says Linux scales up to far more CPUs then Solaris, so Linux scales better.
        First of all, you know nothing of how many CPUs Solaris can scale to. So I find it hard to believe you when you say that "Solaris probably doesnt scale up to 512CPUs" - becuase there is no evidence at all supporting you. In fact, everything speaks against you - Solaris has reputation of scaling well. Linux has not. You have not provided links, nor benchmarks, nor white papers, no evidence at all, to support you. Nothing. If you provided evidence of Solaris scaling bad, then maybe there would be some substance in your claims. But no.

        Second, if Linux EXISTS on a big computer, it does not mean that Linux scales well. So if I assemble a machine with many many dog slow CPUs, the machine is not even efficient, it is slow and bad - and if I compile Solaris to that bad machine with many CPUs - does that mean Solaris scales better than Linux? The mere existence does not say anything. How many percent CPU utiilization does Linux have, on many CPUs, and how much percent has Solaris? THAT is the interesting question. Not if someone compiled Linux to a big computer - that is totally irrelevant.

        15 years ago, I read an article by a computer scientist, a famous professor. He said that scalability is very difficult. On 1000 CPUs, the best researchers in the world, could only utilize 12 CPUs fully. You could replace that 1000 cpu machine, with 12 cpus - and get the same work done. Vertical scalability is very very hard, it takes decades. If you expect Linux (which scaled 2-4CPUs in v2.4) to scale to 4096 CPUs in v2.6 - and do that well, then you should read more about parallell computing research. Vertical scaling is very hard to do well. To scale, is easy - it is just a matter of compiling Linux to that big machine and run some parallell benches. But to good scaling, is very hard.

        Everyone agrees that Linux scales well horizontally. Google runs probably 1000s of Linux nodes in a large cluster. The Linux scaling experts say that "the true value of Linux lies in horizontal scaling". And we all agree with the Linux scaling experts, dont we?


        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        You showed two different papers where Linux and Solaris ran on different hardware. That's all.
        Not many benches use exactly the same hardware, same software, same compiler settings, etc. Even if the same hardware/software where used, you would argue about compiler settings. Or the branding of the RAM sticks, etc. The fact is, Solaris used slower cpu and slower ram, and still topped out. Do you mean that Solaris won, because of the database was so much better than the DB used in Linux benchmark? Is that the reason that Linux only got 87% cpu utilization (which is not that good from a scaling point of view)?

        When Phoronix does these benches, where Linux compiles to 64bit binaries with the newest gcc compiler, and OpenSolaris compiles to 32bit binaries with an outdated gcc compiler - you dont complain. Then you think these benches are fair, because Linux wins big time. When you compare Sparc 800MHz to 2.4GHz Intel dual core Linux, then that bench is fair - you think.


        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        I did, long ago.
        Oh, I must have missed your answer. Can you do a quick recap what Andrew Morton, Linus T, Dave Jones, Alan Cox, etc mean when they say that Linux is buggy, bloated, going to pieces, and code quality is declining? Or is your answer "read the links" - just as usual? Leaving me to figure out, exactly which links, and what you are trying to say?


        Another question. I dont like FUD or lies. You claim Sun FUDs a lot about Linux. Can you do a quick recap on some of the Sun's FUD here? If Sun really FUDs, then I must criticize that. Normally, Sun plays fair. But here is an example of Sun not playing fair, and I criticize. Sun is comparing a new system to a bad slow HP Itanium system (this is something IBM does all the time, and it is not fair to compare a new system to an old system). Read the comments to see my criticism
        http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/631...6-streams.html


        Originally posted by Apopas View Post
        In the very same interview he said kernel is bloated and huge but there is not problem with stability.
        "I think we've been pretty stable,"
        "We are finding the bugs as fast as we're adding them — even though we're adding more code."
        To me, "pretty stable", is not stable. And as we have seen from numerous posts and articles, there are lots of problems with stability. I have posted several such links, I can repost them if you wish.

        Linus claims he finds bugs as fast as they are adding them, even though they add more code. But, you have to remember that Linux code is rewritten all the time. "There is no design, and never will be" - as Linus T said. Linus T says that Linux evolves like biology, try different solutions and keep the best solution. And repeat, slowly Linux is getting better, he claims.

        Say that they squash many bugs, and then Linus rewrites all that code. So now you have new code, with new bugs. The old bug free code is now gone. So how can you decrease the number of bugs? It is impossible if you have new code every half a year. It takes Service Pack 1 before Windows gets stable enough to use. The first code, is always unstable. Old mature code is stable. This is true.


        Originally posted by Apopas View Post
        So you imply that Linux is buggy because it is bloated, while Linus in the very same post you mentioned says this is not a fact.
        So while Linux is bloated and huge, is not buggy. So the problem of bloatness has to do with difficulty to maintain a large amount of code (fortunately kernel has many developers) andmainly a large amount of unecessary code, which while it's still bad doesn't affect Linux' performance.
        No, I do not say that Linux is buggy because it is bloated. Your premise is not correct. Bloat is only ONE of the problems that Linux has. Other problems is Linux has no design and therefore is has no stable ABI (your device driver works good, and after an kernel upgrade it breaks or crashes only under special circumstances - how can Linux be stable under such circumstances?). Another problem is that Linux code gets rewritten all the time, to get stable code, it needs to be old and mature. If you squash bugs, and replace that stable code with new, there are new bugs. So there is always new code, and new bugs. Look at Linux sound API. There are 5(five) different sound APIs, last I heard of. Linux sound is horribly broken, people say.

        Just read what the Linux kernel developers say about Linux kernel. They seem to claim there are many problems.

        Comment


        • #49
          I like the way you replied this time, so I will answer you.

          Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
          We all agree that Linux handles many critical systems and demanding workloads. No one questions this claim, it is true. Yes, Linux is good enough to do that. But Linux is not best. There are better OS out there. Or do you rank Linux above IBM z/OS Mainframes, HP-UX, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, OpenVMS?
          I rank Linux over Solaris.

          Do you think Linux is the most stable OS there is? There is no better? You do not agree that there are better OSes than Linux?
          It's hard to say which OS is the most stable. It probably cannot be proven. I don't consider there are no better systems. For some specialized tasks like real time I'm sure there are better systems now If I remember I didn't say there are no better systems.

          I am not saying that Linux is bad, it is not. It is for instance, far better and more stable than the best Windows version. But Linux is not that perfect that every Linux zealot seems to believe, it has it's flaws. Linux is not flawless. There are better OSes out there. Not counting Solaris, I would use Linux only. I use Ubuntu at home, and like it. But, Linux has some bugs and is not that stable, alas.
          Probably nobody denied Linux has bugs, but you were comparing it to Solaris/OpenSolaris and it sounded like SUN systems are more stable, has less bugs etc. This cannot be proven.

          Personally, I think Linux is very good for Unix. Because if Linux did not exist, everyone would use Windows. From Windows, the step to Unix is too big. But now, even Windows people runs Linux. And from Linux to Unix, the step is quite small. So, Unix potential user base has grown tremendously, because there are so many Linux users out there.
          That's true.

          I wrote that Phoronix should try the latest OpenSolaris build in this benchmark. For that, you attacked me, called me a Troll. And I had to defend myself, or do you rather I be quiet so you can call others name, freely? And then you continued harassing me. And I defended. And you continued. Then, suddenly you say that I should start a new thread. Maybe you wanted to hide all your harassment in another thread? You thought not many people will read another thread, but many reads this benchmark? And I said YOU can start YOUR thread, if you wish. Because I refused to obey you, you say that I "want to pollute this thread" and call me "big troll". Not really fair, to me.
          I didn't attack you because of this. I consider you were trolling many times here and that's why I said what I said. Of course I don't want to hide a thing. Some of your trolling started here:

          http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=48

          I've told you that we think differently. I can not follow your thoughts, you need to explain them to me. I have said this to you, many a times. To no avail. You still refuse to explain what you mean. Why do you refuse to explain what you mean, instead of "read all links, and you will understand what I mean"? What links, there are no links! You have posted many links earlier, but which of them do you refer to? And what do you want me to understand? You dont explain what you are trying to tell me. I have no clue.
          I don't know what you exactly don't understand.

          First of all, you know nothing of how many CPUs Solaris can scale to. So I find it hard to believe you when you say that "Solaris probably doesnt scale up to 512CPUs" - becuase there is no evidence at all supporting you. In fact, everything speaks against you - Solaris has reputation of scaling well. Linux has not. You have not provided links, nor benchmarks, nor white papers, no evidence at all, to support you. Nothing. If you provided evidence of Solaris scaling bad, then maybe there would be some substance in your claims. But no.
          It seems it's not documented how many CPUs Solaris can handle running on a single image. However, there are humongous machines which run Linux not Solaris, so this suggest Linux scales better on such machines. I provided you links which shows Linux scales up to many CPUs on a single image. You showed me links which only suggest Solaris scales better in some environments, but those aren't evidences (I agree mine also aren't evidences). You said Solaris has reputation of scaling well and Linux has not. It is known SUN was driving anti Linux campaign since years like mentioned here:

          http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/cgi-bin/blog.cgi/2007/04/10#bonwick_scalability

          Second, if Linux EXISTS on a big computer, it does not mean that Linux scales well. So if I assemble a machine with many many dog slow CPUs, the machine is not even efficient, it is slow and bad - and if I compile Solaris to that bad machine with many CPUs - does that mean Solaris scales better than Linux? The mere existence does not say anything. How many percent CPU utiilization does Linux have, on many CPUs, and how much percent has Solaris? THAT is the interesting question. Not if someone compiled Linux to a big computer - that is totally irrelevant.
          Those SGI machines were very efficient. There are some factors which can affect CPU utilization. In papers you provided there were different Data Base used and different hardware, so I consider you can't judge scalability just on those papers. I've got some different question - does Solaris can handle as many CPUs as Linux? I don't know, but nobody proved if it can.

          15 years ago, I read an article by a computer scientist, a famous professor. He said that scalability is very difficult. On 1000 CPUs, the best researchers in the world, could only utilize 12 CPUs fully. You could replace that 1000 cpu machine, with 12 cpus - and get the same work done. Vertical scalability is very very hard, it takes decades. If you expect Linux (which scaled 2-4CPUs in v2.4) to scale to 4096 CPUs in v2.6 - and do that well, then you should read more about parallell computing research. Vertical scaling is very hard to do well. To scale, is easy - it is just a matter of compiling Linux to that big machine and run some parallell benches. But to good scaling, is very hard.
          2.6 is a milestone compared to 2.4 when comes to vertical scaling, the same about some newest 2.6 kernels compared to some older. However, it's hard to say if Linux scales to such numbers of CPUs well or not (according to some SGI notes it scaled well).

          Not many benches use exactly the same hardware, same software, same compiler settings, etc. Even if the same hardware/software where used, you would argue about compiler settings. Or the branding of the RAM sticks, etc.
          That's a point and I'm happy you understand this now :>

          The fact is, Solaris used slower cpu and slower ram, and still topped out. Do you mean that Solaris won, because of the database was so much better than the DB used in Linux benchmark? Is that the reason that Linux only got 87% cpu utilization (which is not that good from a scaling point of view)?
          I consider database is quite important here.

          When Phoronix does these benches, where Linux compiles to 64bit binaries with the newest gcc compiler, and OpenSolaris compiles to 32bit binaries with an outdated gcc compiler - you dont complain. Then you think these benches are fair, because Linux wins big time. When you compare Sparc 800MHz to 2.4GHz Intel dual core Linux, then that bench is fair - you think.
          No, I complained many times before, but then I realized they only benchmark distros defaults.

          Oh, I must have missed your answer. Can you do a quick recap what Andrew Morton, Linus T, Dave Jones, Alan Cox, etc mean when they say that Linux is buggy, bloated, going to pieces, and code quality is declining? Or is your answer "read the links" - just as usual? Leaving me to figure out, exactly which links, and what you are trying to say?
          I think you were always taking this out of the contest. They meant only Linux compared to older versions of Linux. This is something natural new bugs and regressions are introduced don't you think? If they say Linux is bloated etc. they don't mean Linux is bloated, more buggy compared to Solaris or any other OS, but to some older Linux' versions.

          Another question. I dont like FUD or lies. You claim Sun FUDs a lot about Linux. Can you do a quick recap on some of the Sun's FUD here? If Sun really FUDs, then I must criticize that. Normally, Sun plays fair.
          I mentioned this many times before. Sun anti Linux campaign: Solaris is better Linux then Linux, Bonwick's PR talk about Linux and its community.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            I rank Linux over Solaris.
            You are free to do so. Everyone has the right to an opinion.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            It's hard to say which OS is the most stable. It probably cannot be proven...Probably nobody denied Linux has bugs, but you were comparing it to Solaris/OpenSolaris and it sounded like SUN systems are more stable, has less bugs etc. This cannot be proven.
            You are right it can not be proven which OS is most stable. Some OpenVMS clusters have 100% uptime for 20 years. Single OpenVMS machines can have uptime of 17 years, as I know of. OpenVMS uptime are measured in decades. This is no proof that OpenVMS is more stable than Linux/Unix. But it is an INDICATION that OpenVMS is more stable.

            Some Unix people say that OpenVMS machines are not patched that often (slow development), so you dont shut them down and therefore you have high uptime, and Unix can easily have similar uptimes if you dont shutdown for patches. There is no stringent proof that OpenVMS is more stable than Unix, but I rank OpenVMS above Unix in terms of stability because I read stories and articles about OpenVMS. I have never read once, that OpenVMS crashed frequently and people said it was a piece of shit, etc etc.

            Maybe there are so few users so there are very few articles about OpenVMS crashing, and therefore I missed the articles? But I dont think so, everytime I read they say OpenVMS is stable and we know that OpenVMS has a reputation of being stable. And also, where I work, a large finance institution, they say that Unix is not as stable as OpenVMS. There is hear say, articles, blogs, etc - all saying the same thing: OpenVMS is stable. This is NO proof, but an indication: maybe the truth is that OpenVMS is more stable than most OS?

            If we consider Solaris and Linux. There are many articles, blogs, and hear say, that Linux is unstable. I dont read same thing about Solaris. I read the opposite, that Linux caused trouble when work load increased much and the companies switched to Solaris and everything is fine. I have posted many such stories and articles, I can repost them if you wish. But I dont read stories about big companies switching from Solaris to Linux because Solaris is unstable. Never. I also read stories where people claim Solaris scales better than Linux, but never the opposite. You have seen all these links I have posted. But you have never showed links showing the opposite.

            You have showed links that Linux exists on big computers and gives high benchmarks on parallell simple workloads. But that is no proof that Linux scales well. You say that Linux exists on as much as 4096 CPU machines.

            Regarding the Niagara CPU. It is rumoured that Sun's next Niagara CPU: T3, will have 16 cores and 16 threads. It is rumoured that there will be eight T3 in one server. Then it will have 8192 threads. Each thread is treated as a separate CPU by Solaris kernel. Solaris thinks there are 8192 CPUs, there are no practical difference to Solaris between a Niagara thread and a CPU, each thread is individual and therefore you can run 8192 virtual machines (one virtual machine on each thread).

            When that server is released this year(?), then, because Solaris runs on a 8192 CPU machine (Linux only runs on a 4096 server) - you will admit that Solaris scales better than Linux? Ok, fine. But that is wrong, just because Solaris runs on a server with 8192 CPUs, it doesnt mean that Solaris scales well! Maybe CPU utilization is very low, then Solaris does not scale well. Just because Solaris exist on a 8192 CPU machine, it doesnt prove anything.

            Fact: I have posted many links that claim that Solaris is more stable, scales better, etc
            Fact: You have not posted links that show the opposite: that Linux is more stable, scales better, etc. You have showed links that Linux EXIST on big computers, but that is not a proof of scalability.
            Fact: I have shown links where Solaris SAP scaling is better.
            Fact: I have shown links where Linux experts say that Linux is good on horizontal scaling.

            So, even if you dont agree with Solaris is more stable, less buggy, scales better - can we agree that there are far more links/articles/blogs from no Sun people/white papers that say Solaris is more stable, less buggy, scales better, than Linux? I have posted many such links, you have not posted as many. If you google for "Solaris unstable" you get 0.17 million hits, if you google for "Linux unstable" you get 1.8million hits. Can we agree: there are far more links showing that Linux has stability problems, than Solaris has stability problems?

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            I didn't attack you because of this. I consider you were trolling many times here and that's why I said what I said. Of course I don't want to hide a thing. Some of your trolling started here:

            http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=48
            Maybe you dont think you attacked me, but I think you attacked me. If you make a joke to a girl, and she thinks that joke was cruel - is it wrong of her to think the joke was inapropriate? Who decides if a joke is cruel or not, you or the victim? If the victim thinks she has been abused, has she been abused - even if you think not?

            What is ok for you, may not be ok for other people. We are different. You may think you didnt attack me, but I think so.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            I don't know what you exactly don't understand.
            That is my point. You dont understand what I mean, I dont understand what you mean. We think differently. Therefore we must be much clearer, and explain much more. Pretend that I am an idiot, just as you suggested.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            It seems it's not documented how many CPUs Solaris can handle running on a single image. However, there are humongous machines which run Linux not Solaris, so this suggest Linux scales better on such machines.
            No, this is not correct. Let us assume that Linux has 1% CPU utilization, does that mean that Linux scales good on these servers? No. The mere EXISTENCE of Linux on a big machine does not prove nothing.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            I provided you links which shows Linux scales up to many CPUs on a single image. You showed me links which only suggest Solaris scales better in some environments, but those aren't evidences (I agree mine also aren't evidences). You said Solaris has reputation of scaling well and Linux has not. It is known SUN was driving anti Linux campaign since years like mentioned here:

            http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/cgi-bin/blog.cgi/2007/04/10#bonwick_scalability
            I agree the main architect of ZFS, Bonwick blog, may be anti Linux, but it is not lies nor FUD.

            Linux v2.4, scaled to 2-4 CPUs according to Linux experts was released 2001. Linux v2.6 which scales to 8-16 sockets according to Linux scalability experts, was released 2003. Two years later. Normal OSes have severe problems scaling to many CPUs, look at Windows. 20 years of development of Windows trying to get into datacenters, and still Windows scales bad even today.

            The Bonwick blog was written early 2007, just 4 years after release of Linux v2.6. I find it hard to believe that, in four years, Linux went from scaling to 8-16 sockets to thousands of sockets. When that Bonwick wrote that blog, Linux scaled even worse than today. And we see that Linux has problems utilizing as few as 48 cores on SAP benches even today. You must remember that Bonwick did not talk about horizontal scaling, everyone (including Bonwick) knows Linux scales well there. Bonwick talked about vertical scaling.


            So please, could you do a recap of some of the Sun FUD and lies? I agree that some people (including me) can sometimes be anti Linux when they say how unstable Linux is or how it scales bad, but it is a big difference from FUDing or lying. For instance, Theo de Raadt who is a FreeBSD guy says the same: that Linux is buggy. If many developers (including Linux devs) say the same thing, it is not a proof, but it is an indication it may be correct.
            http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=48
            But I am sure that all of us, would choose Linux before Windows. Because Linux and Unix are quite similar.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            Those SGI machines were very efficient. There are some factors which can affect CPU utilization. In papers you provided there were different Data Base used and different hardware, so I consider you can't judge scalability just on those papers.
            How do you know that SGI machines were efficient, in general? As the parallell computing professor said, 15 years ago you could utilize only a few percent of many CPUs. I dont know how the current state of research is, but I bet it is not much better. Everyone says parallell programming is hard to do well.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            I've got some different question - does Solaris can handle as many CPUs as Linux? I don't know, but nobody proved if it can.
            I dont see a reason why Solaris can not handle more CPUs than Linux. Solaris has existed and been shipped on servers with 100s of CPUs, for many years. Even when Linux was in it's infant.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            2.6 is a milestone compared to 2.4 when comes to vertical scaling, the same about some newest 2.6 kernels compared to some older. However, it's hard to say if Linux scales to such numbers of CPUs well or not (according to some SGI notes it scaled well).
            Look at CPU utiliization, to get an indication how well it scales. The SGI notes shows that Linux scales well on parallell work loads, which everyone knows it does.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            That's a point and I'm happy you understand this now :>
            So why does there exist benches if you can not draw any conclusions at all?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              I consider database is quite important here.
              I fail to see how the database can affect Linux cpu utilization in an important SAP Enterprise bench. The HP Enterprise benchmarking team are no amateurs. They probably chose the best DB among many. Why should they chose the slowest DB?

              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              No, I complained many times before, but then I realized they only benchmark distros defaults.
              Didnt you show links earlier that one guy migrated from 800MHz SPARC to intel dual core 2.4GHz Linux, and you claimed that Linux was faster?

              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              I think you were always taking this out of the contest. They meant only Linux compared to older versions of Linux. This is something natural new bugs and regressions are introduced don't you think? If they say Linux is bloated etc. they don't mean Linux is bloated, more buggy compared to Solaris or any other OS, but to some older Linux' versions.
              So, Morton means that "compared to earlier Linux versions, the new Linux code quality is declining, but the code quality is still much better than other OS"? And Dave Jones means "The kernel is going to pieces compared to earlier Linux, but it is still much better than other kernels"? And Linus T means that "current Linux is bloated, but compared to other OS it is not bloated"? etc etc?

              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              I mentioned this many times before. Sun anti Linux campaign: Solaris is better Linux then Linux, Bonwick's PR talk about Linux and its community.
              I agree that there are people (Sun, FreeBSD, Windows, OpenBSD, Mac OS X, etc) that are anti linux. But that is not the same thing as FUD and lies.

              I know there are people that are anti Sun, but as long as they dont lie nor FUD, I have no problems with that, I even defend them. I can show links where I defend anti Sun people.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                I fail to see how the database can affect Linux cpu utilization in an important SAP Enterprise bench. The HP Enterprise benchmarking team are no amateurs. They probably chose the best DB among many. Why should they chose the slowest DB?
                I fail how to see this DB is the slowest one (from all databases? or what? andd maybe it has some other advantages then performance and that's why it was chosen? or some another reason?). Solaris server had twice as much memory as Linux server and maybe that's why CPU utilization on Linux server was lower? Maybe Linux server was configured for maximum reliability and Sun's server was not? You can't tell. Apples to oranges.

                Didnt you show links earlier that one guy migrated from 800MHz SPARC to intel dual core 2.4GHz Linux, and you claimed that Linux was faster?
                Probably, but maybe I was claiming Linux server was faster then Sun server? If not, ignore this that's all. You showed two SAP papers which mean the same for me what this means for you.

                So, Morton means that "compared to earlier Linux versions, the new Linux code quality is declining, but the code quality is still much better than other OS"?
                This is what I think. Afaik he didn't say Linux code quality is still (or was) much better then other OS, but he also didn't say it's not much better or it's worse compared to other OS.

                And Dave Jones means "The kernel is going to pieces compared to earlier Linux, but it is still much better than other kernels"?
                Like above. He probably didn't say it's still (or was) much better then other kernels, but he also didn't say it's not much better or it's worse. Btw. like Greg said - a Linux developer, Dave was according to lack of test suits, but it has changed, because there are test suits already.

                And Linus T means that "current Linux is bloated, but compared to other OS it is not bloated"? etc etc?
                I'm sure it's like you said here (or it's not "more bloated" then other OS or not "bloated" as much as others). I think it's obvious he wasn't according to other OS, because if you read some interviews with Linus you can figure out he's not interested in them. A busy kernel maintainer and developer studying some other OS code?

                I agree that there are people (Sun, FreeBSD, Windows, OpenBSD, Mac OS X, etc) that are anti linux. But that is not the same thing as FUD and lies.
                Those what I showed you was Sun's FUD and lies - according to Linux' dev response, but not only. I consider what you were talking about Linux many times is also FUD and maybe even lies. It seems you misinterpreted some people words (I'm almost sure you did this specially). One time you said 32 bit Solaris was benchmarked against 64bit Linux and 64bit *BSD on Phoronix, but (like mentioned in some thread) it's a big possibility it was exactly opposite. Misinterpretation?

                I know there are people that are anti Sun, but as long as they dont lie nor FUD, I have no problems with that, I even defend them. I can show links where I defend anti Sun people.
                This is not necessary. Like I said I consider you were spreading FUD and trolling here.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Btw. like Greg said - a Linux developer, Dave was according to lack of test suits, but it has changed, because there are test suits already.
                  EDIT: from what Greg said it seems Dave was according to lack of test suits and bugs and regressions which slipped to new kernel releases, but situation has changed, because there are test suits and some tools already.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    I fail how to see this DB is the slowest one (from all databases? or what? andd maybe it has some other advantages then performance and that's why it was chosen? or some another reason?). Solaris server had twice as much memory as Linux server and maybe that's why CPU utilization on Linux server was lower? Maybe Linux server was configured for maximum reliability and Sun's server was not? You can't tell. Apples to oranges.
                    The SAP benchmark was not about "maximum reliability", it was about performance. Therefore I fail to see why the HP Enterprise benchmarking team would choose a slower DB, they chose faster CPUs than Solaris, and faster RAM. If you have enough RAM to do a benchmark, then it does not help to add more RAM. Say the benchmark requires 64GB RAM to run, then it doesnt matter if you have 128GB or 256GB RAM or 512GB. Do you want me to email SAP and ask how much RAM is required to do the benchmark? If they say that you need 256GB RAM, then HP Enterprise benchmarking team have failed badly, which is highly unlikely (they try to squeeze every drop of performance on Enterprise benchmarks, they want everyone to see that their machine has highest performance). But if SAP says, you need 40GB RAM, then what? What do you say then?

                    I doubt HP benchmarking team would have too little RAM by mistake. That was a deliberate choice. They tried lots of different HW, until they got the highest score. Those official Enterprise Benchmarks are very important, and you dont let amateurs do them. The Enterprise customers pay LOTS of money, and they look at the official certified benchmarks. HP do not want to loose Enterprise customers just because of some amateurs.

                    Shall I email SAP and ask how much RAM is required to do SAP benchmarks? Do you want me to do that?

                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Probably, but maybe I was claiming Linux server was faster then Sun server? If not, ignore this that's all. You showed two SAP papers which mean the same for me what this means for you.
                    Do you really think it is the same thing, when you compare 800 MHz SPARC to 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo Linux, and when I compare SAP with Linux on faster hardware to Solaris on slower hardware? Are these comparisons equally unfair, you mean? Well, in both cases Linux used faster hardware. But in one case, Linux lost when it only used slightly faster hardware, in the other case, when Linux used three times faster hardware, it won.

                    No, I dont want to ignore this at all. I think this is a very good example on how unfair you are. And now you try to just get rid of it.


                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Those what I showed you was Sun's FUD and lies - according to Linux' dev response, but not only. I consider what you were talking about Linux many times is also FUD and maybe even lies.
                    Havent you claimed many times that I lie? Then you can point out my lies, if can not, then it is you that lies about me. Then it is you that is the liar. Or am I wrong?


                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    It seems you misinterpreted some people words (I'm almost sure you did this specially).
                    As I have tried to explain to you many many many many many many many many many many many many many times: I dont think like you do. I think differently. Mathematicians thinks differently from other people. Therefore I have a hard time to understand you. I dont know if I have explained this to you earlier?

                    The bottom line is: I do not misinterpret on purpose. If I am misinterpreting, it is because I dont understand what you mean! For instance, when I ask something and you say "read the links" without providing any links in that answer. Yes, you have posted many links earlier, but which links shall I read? All of them? Or just a few? The third link? The first? The tenth? Or all these three? And the links you show are not relevant, I do not understand anything.

                    I talk about "show me links where Solaris does not cut it in large scale Enterprise environments, show me that Linux is better and Solaris sucked in Enterprise" - and you post link about a guy that had problems installing an ancient Solaris version on his home PC. That link is clearly not relevant to my question, but, is that link your answer? No, it can not be, because we talked about Enterprise. Or, are you serious with that link? Hmmm... I have on clue. I dont understand. So I ask for clarification, and you say "dont you understand?, maybe it is wrong with your head, I shall treat you like an idiot!" but most often you simply say "I have explained many times" and that is all.

                    How the heck do you expect me to know what you mean? And now you accuse me of "misinterpreting on purpose"??? Are you serious with that accusation??? I have asked you many times to provide more information! And you dont provide me information, maybe it is because you can accuse me on "misinterpreting on purpose"? Is that your plan?


                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    One time you said 32 bit Solaris was benchmarked against 64bit Linux and 64bit *BSD on Phoronix, but (like mentioned in some thread) it's a big possibility it was exactly opposite. Misinterpretation?
                    One Sun engineer posted in the thread, and explained that Linux used 64bits, whereas OpenSolaris used 32bits. I was quoting him. But maybe he lied?


                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    This is not necessary. Like I said I consider you were spreading FUD and trolling here.
                    So, explain to me. Exactly what is FUD to you? Is it writing negative things about Linux, or is it lying, or what is it? I agree I write negative things about Linux, but I do not lie nor FUD. I have not made up things, I have not phantasies about Linux. There are backup and links supporting me. Maybe you should stop accusing people from FUDing? Do you know what FUD is? FUD started with IBM, one former IBM employee founded his own company and IBM spread FUD about his products. IBM are masters of FUD. Read more on wikipedia on FUD.



                    Regarding your strange interpretation of all Linux kernel developers: that they refer to earlier Linux versions - well that means that Linux kernel is now getting worse than ever. So earlier, Linux was better you say. But now it is getting worse. You know developers complain on "the source tree breaks all the time, it is not a fun place to be in". I dont know if other OS developers say the same thing about their code. I doubt it.

                    Anyway, I dont agree with your interpretation of Linux kernel developers.



                    This post was in two parts, did you miss the first part, or do you refuse to answer to it?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                      The SAP benchmark was not about "maximum reliability", it was about performance. Therefore I fail to see why the HP Enterprise benchmarking team would choose a slower DB, they chose faster CPUs than Solaris, and faster RAM. If you have enough RAM to do a benchmark, then it does not help to add more RAM. Say the benchmark requires 64GB RAM to run, then it doesnt matter if you have 128GB or 256GB RAM or 512GB. Do you want me to email SAP and ask how much RAM is required to do the benchmark? If they say that you need 256GB RAM, then HP Enterprise benchmarking team have failed badly, which is highly unlikely (they try to squeeze every drop of performance on Enterprise benchmarks, they want everyone to see that their machine has highest performance). But if SAP says, you need 40GB RAM, then what? What do you say then?
                      Oh, I thought they didn't made those servers just for SAP benchmark purposes, but maybe I'm wrong? A benchmark will probably ran on even less memory, but it probably doesn't mean you will be able to rich maximum CPU utilization. Feel free to send an email and ask. Be so kind and ask what factors can affect CPU utilization. Ask also if this Linux server was set for highest performance and if there are possible bottlenecks in some OS/DB/hardware configurations which can affect CPU utilization. Btw. you will also fail to proof this is not apples to oranges comparison. I consider this comparison of two different servers where the hardware, databases are different and configuration is unknown is meaningless. Also, if you would be able to proof this, this wouldn't definitely mean Linux scales worse then Solaris when comes to vertical scaling. It could be just something wrong with its version which is in this paper. Btw. didn't you say if you're talking about something and cannot prove this you're lying? Of course, I don't agree with this.

                      Do you really think it is the same thing, when you compare 800 MHz SPARC to 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo Linux, and when I compare SAP with Linux on faster hardware to Solaris on slower hardware? Are these comparisons equally unfair, you mean? Well, in both cases Linux used faster hardware. But in one case, Linux lost when it only used slightly faster hardware, in the other case, when Linux used three times faster hardware, it won.
                      Yes, I consider both comparisons are unfair and this doesn't matter if their equally unfair or not. In sap case Solaris used more amount of RAM and different database. Afaik CPU speed shouldn't impact on CPUs utilization.

                      No, I dont want to ignore this at all. I think this is a very good example on how unfair you are. And now you try to just get rid of it.
                      The same I think about you.

                      Havent you claimed many times that I lie? Then you can point out my lies, if can not, then it is you that lies about me. Then it is you that is the liar. Or am I wrong?
                      I consider you were lying, some things cannot be proven, but it doesn't automatically mean you weren't lying. A lie can be what you said about some 64bit Solaris vs 32bit Linux and *BSD.

                      As I have tried to explain to you many many many many many many many many many many many many many times: I dont think like you do. I think differently. Mathematicians thinks differently from other people. Therefore I have a hard time to understand you. I dont know if I have explained this to you earlier?
                      Maybe that's a problem? If you think like that: true or false and you doesn't allow your assumptions can be wrong it can be sometimes stupid imho. What you think is true sometimes can be not. You can't definitely say if something which you're basing your opinions on is 100% true or something else is 100% false and you will sometimes fail trying to proof things using this way. In life, there are many factors which help you to realize if something is true or not and you base on those factors. However, you cannot be sure if this what you're basing on is 100% true or if this gives correct conclusions.

                      The bottom line is: I do not misinterpret on purpose. If I am misinterpreting, it is because I dont understand what you mean! For instance, when I ask something and you say "read the links" without providing any links in that answer. Yes, you have posted many links earlier, but which links shall I read? All of them? Or just a few? The third link? The first? The tenth? Or all these three? And the links you show are not relevant, I do not understand anything.
                      About links, when I quoted your response according to SAP benchmarks and I said "read links I gave you" it's something obvious I was talking about links which I gave you in response to SAP benchmarks before. If this isn't obvious for you it's not my problem and I don't care.

                      I talk about "show me links where Solaris does not cut it in large scale Enterprise environments, show me that Linux is better and Solaris sucked in Enterprise" - and you post link about a guy that had problems installing an ancient Solaris version on his home PC. That link is clearly not relevant to my question, but, is that link your answer? No, it can not be, because we talked about Enterprise. Or, are you serious with that link? Hmmm... I have on clue. I dont understand. So I ask for clarification, and you say "dont you understand?, maybe it is wrong with your head, I shall treat you like an idiot!" but most often you simply say "I have explained many times" and that is all.
                      Afaik you were talking about bugs or problems with Linux etc. I showed you there are also problems with Solaris. Like you said you think differently, so it's not my problem you don't understand. Maybe you were talking about Enterprise, but afaik you didn't say you're talking about enterprise. What I remember you started talking only about Big Irons and some links I gave shows Linux scales very well on Big Irons - like said in links or papers posted long ago.

                      How the heck do you expect me to know what you mean? And now you accuse me of "misinterpreting on purpose"??? Are you serious with that accusation??? I have asked you many times to provide more information! And you dont provide me information, maybe it is because you can accuse me on "misinterpreting on purpose"? Is that your plan?
                      Yes, I'm serious, because you can't proof what you're claiming and you're still writing while you should know you can't proof. Maybe I don't know what information you're asking for or I know what you're trying to proof or what I was trying to proof cannot be proven?


                      One Sun engineer posted in the thread, and explained that Linux used 64bits, whereas OpenSolaris used 32bits. I was quoting him. But maybe he lied?
                      Can you point to this? I was according to this:

                      http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=40
                      http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...3&postcount=25

                      So, explain to me. Exactly what is FUD to you? Is it writing negative things about Linux, or is it lying, or what is it? I agree I write negative things about Linux, but I do not lie nor FUD. I have not made up things, I have not phantasies about Linux. There are backup and links supporting me. Maybe you should stop accusing people from FUDing? Do you know what FUD is? FUD started with IBM, one former IBM employee founded his own company and IBM spread FUD about his products. IBM are masters of FUD. Read more on wikipedia on FUD.
                      Which links do support you? I don't care where FUD started, but SUN was spreading FUD about Linux. I consider some of your conclusions were FUD or lies. You were basing on some Linux devs words, but what you were claiming here is very unlikely in my opinion and you can't proof what you were claiming here is true.

                      Regarding your strange interpretation of all Linux kernel developers: that they refer to earlier Linux versions - well that means that Linux kernel is now getting worse than ever. So earlier, Linux was better you say. But now it is getting worse. You know developers complain on "the source tree breaks all the time, it is not a fun place to be in". I dont know if other OS developers say the same thing about their code. I doubt it.
                      I consider your interpretation is strange and misleading. Some dev was talking about regressions and bugs, but according to what Greg said it was because lack of test suits and this changed. I'm not saying Linux was better, if there was less bugs it doesn't mean it was better. I consider it's much better now, because there are more features, better performance and more drivers. There's more code in Linux now then before, so there are more bugs, but like Linus said:

                      "I think we've been pretty stable,"
                      "We are finding the bugs as fast as we're adding them even though we're adding more code."
                      According to his words Linux is in a very good shape, because they're finding bugs as fast as they're adding them and it seems this made Dave talk obsolete.

                      Anyway, I dont agree with your interpretation of Linux kernel developers.
                      Feel free to disagree

                      This post was in two parts, did you miss the first part, or do you refuse to answer to it?
                      Oh, I missed it. However I consider there's nothing worth replying to. I consider many things you showed as something meaningless, I consider Bonwick spreaded FUD and lied etc. About stability there was a Linux server which ran for twelve years (or more, because I saw this quite long ago and afaik I have written about this) and here's some nice example of Linux stability and reliability:

                      http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rel/

                      I usually ignore things which cannot be proven and/or would be just waste of time, but simply I missed your post.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        As I have tried to explain to you many many many many many many many many many many many many many times: I dont think like you do. I think differently. Mathematicians thinks differently from other people. Therefore I have a hard time to understand you. I dont know if I have explained this to you earlier?
                        And if you think differently why do you expect I'll answer you the way you expect and why do you consider I will understand what you're trying to say or trying to proof? I don't remember if you tried to explain this earlier or not. You were sometimes claiming you don't understand.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          These SAP benchmarks are to show to the Enterprise customers, which setup is the highest performant. Just like Phoronix benchmarks: OpenSolaris, Linux, FreeBSD. These benchmarks are not about "maximum reliability", they are about performance. Benchmark where they measure who is fastest and reach highest numbers, are about performance. They did not measure the longest uptime, or "maximum reliability", did they? No, it was about who can process most transactions. The HP Enterprise benchmarking team tried different configurations to get the highest score. Different RAM amounts, different speed of memory sticks, etc. If they saw that 256GB RAM would give higher score, they would have used 256GB in this benchmark.

                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Feel free to send an email [to HP] and ask.
                          ....
                          Btw. you will also fail to proof this is not apples to oranges comparison. I consider this comparison of two different servers where the hardware, databases are different and configuration is unknown is meaningless. Also, if you would be able to proof this, this wouldn't definitely mean Linux scales worse then Solaris when comes to vertical scaling. It could be just something wrong with its version which is in this paper.
                          So, even if SAP gives me right, you do not accept that? Even if SAP says that "the DB only gives data to the CPUs, and any modern DB can give data fast enough, the DB is just used for fetching data, the DB does not process anything, SAP does all the processing, the DB is irrelevant in SAP data processing benchmark" - then you do not accept that? Whatever SAP says, it is "meaningless"? So you have made up your mind, even before I ask SAP? Is this correct?

                          And if SAP mails back telling something good for Linux (maybe, the Linux machine was using an old SAP version that only allowed 4 CPUs, not all 8 CPUs) so that Linux actually wins, then suddenly the SAP benchmarks are excellent and reliable? Suddenly the SAP benchmarks are not "stupid" anymore? If Linux wins the next SAP benchmark, then SAP is not "stupid" anymore? Is this correct? SAP is "stupid" when Linux looses, but perfect and good and reliable when Linux wins?

                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Yes, I consider both comparisons are unfair and this doesn't matter if their equally unfair or not. In sap case Solaris used more amount of RAM and different database. Afaik CPU speed shouldn't impact on CPUs utilization.
                          How do you explain that Solaris got higher SAP scores than Linux, although Solaris used slower hardware? I think the easiest explanation is that Solaris had 99% CPU utilization, whereas Linux had 87% utilization. Therefore Solaris could win, even on slower hardware. But maybe you have another more probable explanation why Solaris could win?


                          Kebabbert:
                          "No, I dont want to ignore this at all. I think this is a very good example on how unfair you are. And now you try to just get rid of it."
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          The same I think about you.
                          Do you think I am unfair in my comparison of Solaris on slower hardware against Linux on faster hardware?? Are you serious?? I think it is very unfair of YOU to compare SPARC 800MHz to Linux Intel Dual Core 2.4GHz. How can you post such a link, and try to convince everyone that Linux is faster than Solaris? Fortunately, I read your article carefully and discovered that the Linux supporter that wrote that article, compared 800MHz SPARC to Linux Intel Dual Core 2.4GHz. When I discovered that unfair comparison, I could tell everyone it is unfair, and I could dispel your false claims about Solaris. If I had not read that article, then you would have succeeded in spreading that Linux supporters FUD, without noone telling you it is FUD. Some people would call that FUD. Do you agree, that you tried to FUD? Why do you want me to ignore this clear example of your FUD? Because people will understand you FUDed?

                          You want me to ignore your FUD. That is very telling what you do: FUD.

                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          I consider you were lying, some things cannot be proven, but it doesn't automatically mean you weren't lying.
                          If you dont know If I speak truth or lie, how can you be sure that I lie? If you can not prove that I lie, then you can not be sure, so how can you tell if I lie or speak true? If I tell you I have one dollar in my pocket, then you can not tell if I lie or not. Then you have no right to accuse me of being a liar. You can accuse me of being a liar if you KNOW that I lie. But if you dont know (you can not prove) then you have no right to accuse me of lying. I can not tell everyone that you are a murderer, can I? I must have proof, I can not falsely accuse you of being a murder, can I?

                          Actually, becuase you accuse me to lie, becuase you tell things that are not true about me, do you know what you are doing? You are spreading FUD about me. If the things you spread about me where true, then you are not a FUDer. But you have no support of your claims. You are just lying about me. Therefore you spread FUD about me. And spread FUD about Solaris. You have claimed numerous times Solaris is slow and buggy, and never showed any links on that.



                          It seems that you dont know what FUD is. I suggest you study that word. Tell me, what is FUD? To criticise something, is not FUD. To tell untrue things is FUD. Read about what FUD is. Because of now, you are actually FUDing, but you dont know that you are doing that. Seriously, read about what FUD does mean. You are FUDing, right now. That is a bit fun. You accuse me of things (you have never pointed out anything about me) and you, yourself are actually doing everything that you accuse me of: lie and FUD. What is FUD? Tell me.


                          Kebabert
                          "One Sun engineer posted in the thread, and explained that Linux used 64bits, whereas OpenSolaris used 32bits. I was quoting him. But maybe he lied?"
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Can you point to this?
                          The Sun engineer posted that 2 pages earlier in this thread. And also, in an old Phoronix benchmark a Sun engineer posted it again.
                          http://phoronix.com/forums/showpost....5&postcount=33



                          Regarding "Bonwick's FUD". Is it possible for any company or person to tell that Linux is bad in any way, without you consider it be FUD? Is it possible? Do you equal negative criticism with FUD? Is they the same thing?




                          Regarding, my way of thinking. I know what a proof is, you do not know, so please dont tell me I think in a non correct way. You seem to confuse deduction with induction. I am doing induction here, which is correct to do. It is wrong to do deduction here, I am not doing that. You seem to believe I do deduction, but, no, I dont do that. Let me ask again, you do not agree that there are far more links on Linux having problems than Solaris having problems? "Linux unstable" gives 1.8million Google hits. "Solaris unstable" gives 0.17 million Google hits. You do not agree that there are more links about Linux having problems, than Solaris?



                          Originally posted by Kebabbert View Post
                          Why are the SAP papers stupid? Is it because Linux looses? If Linux win, then SAP papers are good, yes? So what is a good paper? A paper is good if Linux wins, and bad if Linux looses?
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Read links I showed you.
                          Originally posted by Kebabbert View Post
                          The bottom line is: I do not misinterpret on purpose. If I am misinterpreting, it is because I dont understand what you mean! For instance, when I ask something and you say "read the links" without providing any links in that answer. Yes, you have posted many links earlier, but which links shall I read? All of them? Or just a few? The third link? The first? The tenth? Or all these three? And the links you show are not relevant, I do not understand anything.
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          About links, when I quoted your response according to SAP benchmarks and I said "read links I gave you" it's something obvious I was talking about links which I gave you in response to SAP benchmarks before. If this isn't obvious for you it's not my problem and I don't care.
                          You have showed me several links, yes. Inside these posts of yours, are three links you showed when we talked about SAP benchmarks.
                          http://phoronix.com/forums/showpost....3&postcount=36
                          http://phoronix.com/forums/showpost....8&postcount=37
                          In your three links, which sentences supports your claim that SAP benchmarks are stupid and unfair? Can you copy and paste the sentences here? I have read these three links, but the claim that SAP produces stupid benchmarks are "not obvious to me". Could you please clarify and copy and paste text so we can understand how you mean? Or, do you think that I am "misinterpreting on purpose" now again? "It is obvious" how you mean, and I "am an idiot" and "there is something wrong with my head"?

                          "If this isn't obvious for you it's not my problem and I don't care" - Kraftman in a nutshell?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                            These SAP benchmarks are to show to the Enterprise customers, which setup is the highest performant. Just like Phoronix benchmarks: OpenSolaris, Linux, FreeBSD. These benchmarks are not about "maximum reliability", they are about performance. Benchmark where they measure who is fastest and reach highest numbers, are about performance. They did not measure the longest uptime, or "maximum reliability", did they? No, it was about who can process most transactions. The HP Enterprise benchmarking team tried different configurations to get the highest score. Different RAM amounts, different speed of memory sticks, etc. If they saw that 256GB RAM would give higher score, they would have used 256GB in this benchmark.
                            It seems HP server failed to achieve maximum performance. You can't say why they used less memory or different DB. It's something obvious HP server could has less memory and thus be cheaper then Sun's server to attract customers. There are also different things which can mean this is apples to oranges comparison.

                            So, even if SAP gives me right, you do not accept that? Even if SAP says that "the DB only gives data to the CPUs, and any modern DB can give data fast enough, the DB is just used for fetching data, the DB does not process anything, SAP does all the processing, the DB is irrelevant in SAP data processing benchmark" - then you do not accept that? Whatever SAP says, it is "meaningless"? So you have made up your mind, even before I ask SAP? Is this correct?
                            I consider EVEN is a bad word here, because it seems they're allies with MS:

                            http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft,-SAP-...5684227.htmlIt seems there are also mainly MS and Solaris systems in SAP database, so this looks strange and it seems SAP doesn't like Open Source:

                            http://news.techworld.com/applicatio...k-against-sap/

                            Shai Agassi, SAP's head of product development and technology, said open source represents a kind of "IP socialism" that kills innovation. Agassi later downplayed the comments, saying they had been reported out of context.
                            Rosenberg said SAP's remarks aren't far from the previous attempts by Microsoft executives to turn businesses against open-source, calling the development model a "cancer" that is "un-American".
                            http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/softwa...9290127,00.htm

                            SAP is not the first company to claim that open source development is not compatible with capitalism. In an interview earlier this year, Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates implied that free software developers were communists.
                            Also - "and any modern DB can give data fast enough" - doesn't mean any modern DB will give you the best results.

                            And if SAP mails back telling something good for Linux (maybe, the Linux machine was using an old SAP version that only allowed 4 CPUs, not all 8 CPUs) so that Linux actually wins, then suddenly the SAP benchmarks are excellent and reliable?
                            No, I consider this cannot be proven this way which system wins. Btw. I don't care anymore about SAP

                            Suddenly the SAP benchmarks are not "stupid" anymore? If Linux wins the next SAP benchmark, then SAP is not "stupid" anymore? Is this correct? SAP is "stupid" when Linux looses, but perfect and good and reliable when Linux wins?
                            Maybe they're not stupid, but according to quotes I posted who knows (and according to those quotes SAP seems to be no trustworthy - however, I consider comparing two different servers is apples to oranges, so I consider their benchmarks are meaningless when comes to comparing operating systems and thus it probably doesn't matter if SAP is trustworthy or not)?

                            How do you explain that Solaris got higher SAP scores than Linux, although Solaris used slower hardware? I think the easiest explanation is that Solaris had 99% CPU utilization, whereas Linux had 87% utilization. Therefore Solaris could win, even on slower hardware. But maybe you have another more probable explanation why Solaris could win?
                            And Linux used less RAM and different DB (look to one of my above comments). Like I said, slower CPU rather shouldn't affect CPU utilization (a guess). Solaris could win because: Solaris server had greater amount of ram, its database was faster, Solaris scaled better on this configuration, there was a bug or some bottleneck somewhere which didn't allow HP server to reach 99%CPUs utilization etc.

                            Do you think I am unfair in my comparison of Solaris on slower hardware against Linux on faster hardware?? Are you serious?? I think it is very unfair of YOU to compare SPARC 800MHz to Linux Intel Dual Core 2.4GHz. How can you post such a link, and try to convince everyone that Linux is faster than Solaris? Fortunately, I read your article carefully and discovered that the Linux supporter that wrote that article, compared 800MHz SPARC to Linux Intel Dual Core 2.4GHz. When I discovered that unfair comparison, I could tell everyone it is unfair,
                            Didn't I agree this wasn't a fair comparison?

                            and I could dispel your false claims about Solaris. If I had not read that article, then you would have succeeded in spreading that Linux supporters FUD, without noone telling you it is FUD. Some people would call that FUD. Do you agree, that you tried to FUD? Why do you want me to ignore this clear example of your FUD? Because people will understand you FUDed?
                            The same about you, you started spreading FUD about Linux (here and at osnews.com) and then I started talking about Solaris

                            You want me to ignore your FUD. That is very telling what you do: FUD.
                            No, you want me to ignore your FUD That is very telling what you do: FUD.

                            If you dont know If I speak truth or lie, how can you be sure that I lie? If you can not prove that I lie, then you can not be sure, so how can you tell if I lie or speak true? If I tell you I have one dollar in my pocket, then you can not tell if I lie or not. Then you have no right to accuse me of being a liar. You can accuse me of being a liar if you KNOW that I lie. But if you dont know (you can not prove) then you have no right to accuse me of lying. I can not tell everyone that you are a murderer, can I? I must have proof, I can not falsely accuse you of being a murder, can I?
                            I consider you lied sometimes, must I be sure? I consider you lied saying Linux doesn't scale well on Big Irons, your misinterpretation could also be lies. You were spreading FUD about Linux according to what its devs said, but you misinterpreted their words or used them out of contest.

                            Actually, becuase you accuse me to lie, becuase you tell things that are not true about me, do you know what you are doing? You are spreading FUD about me. If the things you spread about me where true, then you are not a FUDer. But you have no support of your claims. You are just lying about me. Therefore you spread FUD about me. And spread FUD about Solaris. You have claimed numerous times Solaris is slow and buggy, and never showed any links on that.
                            You're saying those things are not true about you, but I consider they're true. It is you who's spreading FUD about me and lying, because you're accusing me I'm lying while you can't proof - I considered Solaris is slow and buggy, because it was slow on my PC, there are many reports it is slow and it is buggy, because it has many bugs.

                            http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=29677
                            http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5348032

                            I'm almost sure I showed you links related to what I said above, so are you lying now? :>

                            It seems that you dont know what FUD is. I suggest you study that word. Tell me, what is FUD? To criticise something, is not FUD. To tell untrue things is FUD. Read about what FUD is. Because of now, you are actually FUDing, but you dont know that you are doing that. Seriously, read about what FUD does mean. You are FUDing, right now. That is a bit fun. You accuse me of things (you have never pointed out anything about me) and you, yourself are actually doing everything that you accuse me of: lie and FUD. What is FUD? Tell me.
                            It is you who's lying and FUDing and this is funny. You can consider I was also FUDing, but I didn't misinterpreted some people words and used this against Solaris.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product
                              Like Bonwick about Linux, and like you about Linux, because you misinterpreted its devs words and used them to "show" Linux is worse then Solaris.

                              Regarding "Bonwick's FUD". Is it possible for any company or person to tell that Linux is bad in any way, without you consider it be FUD?
                              Of course it is. If they're not competitors, enemies etc.

                              Do you equal negative criticism with FUD? Is they the same thing?
                              No, I do not equal them and they're not the same thing.

                              Regarding, my way of thinking. I know what a proof is, you do not know, so please dont tell me I think in a non correct way. You seem to confuse deduction with induction. I am doing induction here, which is correct to do. It is wrong to do deduction here, I am not doing that. You seem to believe I do deduction, but, no, I dont do that. Let me ask again, you do not agree that there are far more links on Linux having problems than Solaris having problems? "Linux unstable" gives 1.8million Google hits. "Solaris unstable" gives 0.17 million Google hits. You do not agree that there are more links about Linux having problems, than Solaris?
                              About links, Linux is more popular, Linux runs more hardware, there are MANY more Linux systems (distributions which are dozens) then Solaris* (three, four?), so there are more reports. I think this what your doing here is pointless (or it's trolling or at least was).

                              You have showed me several links, yes. Inside these posts of yours, are three links you showed when we talked about SAP benchmarks.
                              http://phoronix.com/forums/showpost....3&postcount=36
                              http://phoronix.com/forums/showpost....8&postcount=37
                              In your three links, which sentences supports your claim that SAP benchmarks are stupid and unfair? Can you copy and paste the sentences here? I have read these three links, but the claim that SAP produces stupid benchmarks are "not obvious to me". Could you please clarify and copy and paste text so we can understand how you mean? Or, do you think that I am "misinterpreting on purpose" now again? "It is obvious" how you mean, and I "am an idiot" and "there is something wrong with my head"?
                              I mentioned about SAP above. You didn't considered this which is obvious:

                              Linux is more popular, Linux runs more hardware, there are MANY more Linux systems (distributions) then Solaris*, so there are more reports.
                              so that's probably why I assumed you are an idiot and because you couldn't proof what you were claiming about.

                              "If this isn't obvious for you it's not my problem and I don't care" - Kraftman in a nutshell?
                              Nope, but this can be sometimes true.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                It seems that you dont know what FUD is. I suggest you study that word. Tell me, what is FUD? To criticise something, is not FUD. To tell untrue things is FUD. Read about what FUD is. Because of now, you are actually FUDing, but you dont know that you are doing that. Seriously, read about what FUD does mean. You are FUDing, right now. That is a bit fun. You accuse me of things (you have never pointed out anything about me) and you, yourself are actually doing everything that you accuse me of: lie and FUD. What is FUD? Tell me.
                                Saying untrue things you say?

                                http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showt...t=19157&page=6

                                11 millions line of code for one simple KERNEL. That is huge. It is funny you dont agree with Linus T nor with me. Entire Windows NT was 10 millions LoC. Solaris is much smaller than bloated Linux. Every OS is much smaller than Linux. Maybe except Vista.
                                You never proved every OS is much smaller then Linux. Linux as a whole OS - PuppyLinux is smaller then WindowsXP, Vista, then OSX, Solaris. Linux kernel which is running can be smaller then Windows XP, Vista, Win7 kernels (I'm sure it can be much smaller then Solaris kernel etc.). You were lying.

                                Linux just copies and never invents new smoking hot tech.
                                I don't know if RCU is/was a new smoking hot tech, but afaik only Linux has this. There's probably more.

                                You said:

                                This is interesting. Can you back up your claims? If it is true that half of Linux 11 MloC is drivers, then it is not as bad as I thought. And NTs codebase of 10MloC is almost purely Kernel code? Can you back that up?
                                Then you get answer later (when comes to Linux) and you were claiming the same in this thread - that Linux is bloated while this quoted suggests it's not.

                                Come on, 11 M LoC of kernel code is TOO much. That is a fact.
                                That is not a fact.

                                http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=29

                                Under high load, Linux crumbles and gets unstable. Whereas Solaris does not.
                                A lie. Look here:

                                http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rel/

                                Linux doesn't crumbles and gets unstable.

                                As Ive said, Solaris has been doing this stuff for decades, whereas Linux has not. The first version of Solaris 30 years ago, was called SunOS. It was not that good, had not good code, did only scale well to 8-16 cpus, just like Linux today.
                                When you posted this, Linux scaled up to hundreds if not to thousands of CPUs. Another lie.

                                You see? You were FUDing :> I agree, I also was FUDing sometimes (according to wikipedia), but I'm sure you were also trolling If you wouldn't came here and start trolling from very first posts, you would probably get better answers and you probably wouldn't be called "idiot, etc." Btw. this what wikipedia says about FUD is stupid imho:

                                FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not even exist. (If the paper exists, then it is not FUD, but valid criticism.)
                                If this professor was paid to write some paper or if he's wrong and someone already proved he's wrong why is this FUD no more?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X