Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farewell To OpenSolaris. Oracle Just Killed It Off.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Personally, I think Solaris has never been in better shape. Oracle is investing heavily in Solaris 11 and in SPARC. The new SPARC machines will have 16.384 threads and 64TB RAM. In Solaris, a thread is treated similarly as a cpu. Massive scalability in one single computer, 16.384 cpus.
    Sadly, Solaris supports only up to 64CPUs right now and may support up to 128CPUs next year. It's very limited number compared to Linux.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      Sadly, Solaris supports only up to 64CPUs right now and may support up to 128CPUs next year. It's very limited number compared to Linux.
      Because you dont call me "idiot" or "moron" in your post, I will answer.

      Almost ten years ago, you could buy a 106 CPU Solaris server. Solaris scaled well even then.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Fire_15K

      A thread presents itself to the OS as a cpu. See for instance Windows cpu window if you have a hyperthreaded cpu, there will be two threads for each core so you will see two cpus for each core.

      Today you can buy a 256 thread Solaris server "Sun T5440", which means the Solaris OS sees 256 cpus and use them very well. You need three IBM POWER p570 servers with 14 POWER6 CPUs at 5GHz, to get 7.000 SIEBEL benchmark points. The single Sun T5440 machine, which has 4 Niagara cpus at 1.4GHz, gets 14.000 points. That is double performance. Solaris does really use the CPUs very well, scales very well. One IBM p570 server costed 413.000 USD and one Sun T5440 costed 76.000 USD. You need six IBM p570 servers to match one Sun T5440 server.

      (Here are some less credible talk about scalability, because it is a Sun guy that has written it.
      http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1095419 )




      Of course you could compile OpenSolaris on a computer with 1000000000 cpus, does that mean that OpenSolaris can use all those CPUs well? Does it mean OpenSolaris scales well? If you compile Linux to such a machine, does it mean Linux scales well? No. The mere existence does not prove anything. You can not say "Linux is available on a machine with many cpus - this must mean Linux scales well". No.

      If we talk about the 1024 cpu Linux machine from SGI, it behaves exactly as a cluster - that is, a network with some PCs. I have posted links explaining this. It is no coincidence that SGI posts benchmarks where the work load is embarassingly parallell, so SGI can partition the work load into 128 independent parts, and SGI runs each part on each node in the SGI machine. (As a coincidence, there are 128 nodes in the SGI machine. Just look at the benchmarks.)

      Comment


      • #33
        Oh, to stop you're bull I say it different way:

        Solaris can scale only up to 64 physical CPUs on a single machine while Linux can scale up to 4096 physical CPUs. I don't care about hyper threading etc. I also don't care I could buy a 106CPUs server years ago and I don't care how many threads Solaris sees.

        The Sun Fire 15K supported up to 106 UltraSPARC III processors (up to 1.2 GHz)
        There's nothing about Solaris scaling up to 106CPUs, I could only buy server with such number of CPUs. Rhetoric and FUD as usual. Solaris scales to relatively small number of real CPUs compared to Linux. I don't care if you're replying me or not.

        Comment


        • #34
          If we talk about the 1024 cpu Linux machine from SGI, it behaves exactly as a cluster - that is, a network with some PCs.
          We were talking also about 2048CPUs machine, afaik 4x256 CPU machines, so Linux scaled on four times bigger machines then Solaris could even handle (vertical scaling). And, as said Linux scales up to 4096CPUs and this is the fact.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            We were talking also about 2048CPUs machine, afaik 4x256 CPU machines, so Linux scaled on four times bigger machines then Solaris could even handle (vertical scaling). And, as said Linux scales up to 4096CPUs and this is the fact.
            Yeah, it scales right up until the point where you want to hotplug CPUs.

            Comment


            • #36
              And Solaris does >144 CPUs right now, you can configure an F25K to boot one domain with all 144 CPUs.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by LightningCrash View Post
                Yeah, it scales right up until the point where you want to hotplug CPUs.
                Hmm, as in online replacement of broken CPU's or what? (sounds risky if so unless you can cut power to the individual socket)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                  Hmm, as in online replacement of broken CPU's or what? (sounds risky if so unless you can cut power to the individual socket)
                  Yeah, replacing CPU and memory on a running system.
                  Hypothetically the NUMA hotplug support is there in Linux, but there isn't any hardware for it on x86. There is no support for the enterprise hotplug capabilities of non-x86 archs in Linux, either.
                  When you scale up to big hardware you have no single points of failure... E10Ks, 25Ks, M9Ks, etc. You can replace every component with the system running.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "... You can replace every component with the system running"

                    Only when you have redundancy ;P

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by LightningCrash View Post
                      And Solaris does >144 CPUs right now, you can configure an F25K to boot one domain with all 144 CPUs.
                      Yes, I heard that too. But didnt have a reliable post to show Kraftman. He would just call me a liar and FUDer for writing this, without any links. Actually, it doesnt matter if I show links or research papers, he will still totally ignore them and call me a FUDer and liar. It has happened at several times.

                      If you have links about this, please post them for me. Kraftman will just ignore your links and still spread FUD on the internet that Solaris only scales to 64 cpus - which is not true as both you and I have explained. There is no way someone can make him understand he is wrong, even if truth bit him in the back. He will continue to explain to everyone that Solaris only scales to 64 cpus. There is nothing you can do, to make him understand that is false. But if you have links, please show me. I will book mark that link and show it to other people. I want to always back up my claim with links when someone asks. I dont want to say false things, that would be bad.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Not that it helps any, but the Rock chip was s'posed to have up to 256 threads per core and some code in OpenSolaris points to 8 cpu boxes planned on being delivered with Rock chips in them, which according to the register would give 2048 threads/cores:

                        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07...hread_niagara/

                        "Also of note, we've discovered that Sun's next version of Solaris has been tweaked to handle up to 256 cores with an option to stretch all the way to 2048 cores. (Sun seems to be interchanging cores and threads at this point.)"

                        Yeah I know Rock never shipped, and was never ready in time to be the Intel killer it should have been</rant> but the code to deal with that amount of cores and threads is still in OpenSolaris, even if the rock identification specific code has been removed from OpenSolaris around build 122:

                        http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads...#pb_1249605579

                        Solaris 7 was the last version of Solaris to only scale to 64 cpu's, Solaris 8-10 scaled to 144 cpu's according to documentation I've seen, and older documents on Sun's website (links from the Oracle site seem to only burn my fingers)

                        Yes, that's not talking about 4096 cpu's but the FUD of 64 processors limit on (a straight out of the box) Solaris just hasn't existed in about 11 years.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by jadrevenge View Post
                          Yes, that's not talking about 4096 cpu's but the FUD of 64 processors limit on (a straight out of the box) Solaris just hasn't existed in about 11 years.
                          It wont help to post links. Kraftman has confessed he FUDs. Just read his post, and you will see where he wrote it.

                          Regarding Linux on 1024 cpu machines and more. Such machines are basically just a cluster of nodes on a fast switch. Read here for more info.
                          http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/675...-you,-SGI.html

                          "Perhaps those benchmarks published by SGI finally deliver a few nails for the coffin of the reasoning of some fanboys that Linux scales better than Solaris, because there are systems with thousands of cores out there. Linux scales on this system exactly like a cluster."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                            ... Regarding Linux on 1024 cpu machines and more. Such machines are basically just a cluster of nodes on a fast switch. Read here for more info.
                            http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/675...-you,-SGI.html

                            ...
                            Now thats a good link ... it'd be nice if they showed a 4JVM (since it seems to be only 25% performance at 1JVM) and work out how many "clusters" the system appears to actually be made up of, and basically what clustering of Other systems would match it.

                            The limitation of performance appears to be the hardware, not the software. If Solaris, BSD or even Windows was able to be installed and run without a processor limit they would all hit the hardware limitation.

                            Shame kraftman won't even read the article because it's written on a blog by a (in big letters) "Member of the Hamburger (Open)Solaris User Group" on a blatantly Solaris based site

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Yes, that guy knows what he talks about and he examines the benchmark and tells you the facts that are not obvious. For instance, configuration, etc. It seems he works with that kind of stuff.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                                Regarding Linux on 1024 cpu machines and more. Such machines are basically just a cluster of nodes on a fast switch. Read here for more info.
                                http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/675...-you,-SGI.html

                                "Perhaps those benchmarks published by SGI finally deliver a few nails for the coffin of the reasoning of some fanboys that Linux scales better than Solaris, because there are systems with thousands of cores out there. Linux scales on this system exactly like a cluster."
                                That link is interesting, but note that the blog makes sure to say "on this system" rather than on all systems. Do you have proof that all such machines are like that, rather than just the specified SGI machine?

                                And ultimately, it seems to be making the argument that the vertical scaling you're so hot about doesn't really matter, since once you get high enough it just becomes a horizontal scaling situation anyway, which you've repeatedly agreed that Linux is good at.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X