Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farewell To OpenSolaris. Oracle Just Killed It Off.

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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?
    No proof. But as Linux scaled bad vertically in v2.6 I doubt it can scale good now. It takes decades to scale well horizontally. Recently IBM had to rewrite their old mature Enterprise Unix AIX, to make it scale better. And AIX is old. Linux scaling experts explained that Linux scales good horizontally, and also good vertically ("Linux will scale to 16 cores in v2.6 which is super good!!!") which is actually very bad. No one except Linux scaling experts thinks 16 cores is good scaling. In recent official SAP benchmarks, Linux gets very low cpu utilization on as little as 48 cores: only 87% utilization which is not good. Solaris gets 99% cpu utilization. So I really doubt that Linux scales well on 1024 cpus. Sure, Linux is probably faster on single threaded, simple things. But on complex, many core things, Solaris scales better.


    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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.
    I dont think so. Oracle plans to release a Solaris server with 16.384 threads (which will present themselves to Solaris as cpus), so a single machine it is. Of course, if it turns out that the Oracle machine is a cluster, then I must change my mind and take this back.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
      It wont help to post links. Kraftman has confessed he FUDs. Just read his post, and you will see where he wrote it.
      Oh, dumb. You FUD and many people FUD. FUD happens. Idiot, the fact is slowlaris scales only up to 64CPUs and Linux scales up to 4096CPUs. Dot. I don't care if you believe or not. You're an idiot, so you're free to not believe in facts.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by jadrevenge View Post
        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
        The shame is you're not able to provide article where Solaris scales at 128CPUs or more on a single image.

        Comment


        • #49
          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.
          On a single image? If yes, then why Oracle says Solaris 11 will scale up to 128 CPUs (at h-online they're saying about cores, but at heise-online.pl they're saying about CPUs)? 144 is still a small number compared to what Linux can handle.

          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.
          I just ignore some of your idiotic links. I want you to give a proof not some explanations.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            On a single image? If yes, then why Oracle says Solaris 11 will scale up to 128 CPUs (at h-online they're saying about cores, but at heise-online.pl they're saying about CPUs)? 144 is still a small number compared to what Linux can handle.

            I just ignore some of your idiotic links. I want you to give a proof not some explanations.
            Yes, 1 image. and they say 144 right now
            Google "solaris 144 cpus" and there's a PDF from Oracle about Solaris 10 talking about how it runs 144 CPUs right now.

            What you're bitching about is the current socket count of SPARC and x86, not the limitations of Solaris itself. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
            There are no 4096 socket Linux machines, and not even 2048 socket Linux machines.

            You is trollin
            boxxyface.jpg

            Comment


            • #51
              LightningCrash,
              Uh oh, you shouldnt say so to Kraftman. He will be angry with you, and you will get posts like this:

              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              Oh, dumb. You FUD and many people FUD. FUD happens. Idiot, the fact is slowlaris scales only up to 64CPUs and Linux scales up to 4096CPUs. Dot. I don't care if you believe or not. You're an idiot, so you're free to not believe in facts.
              You can not make him understand that Solaris scales far above 64 cpus. That is impossible, no matter what facts/links you provide. If you post article to a Solaris machine with 144 cpus, Kraftman will as usual say "it is FUD and lie, it is Sun/Oracle propaganda and not to be trusted". If you post such Sun/Oracle links, you will just trigger Kraftman and he will be even more angry.

              Anyway, let us all agree that Solaris scales to only 64 cpus, and Linux scales to 4096. Then Kraftman maybe will be less hostile and stop to spew out his FUD. We are not allowed to ask him to show links, because then he might get angry. Let him continue to FUD that Solaris scales to 64 cpus.

              Those persons who check up facts, and not trust Kraftman, will see that he is just FUDing. Let us stop this, there is no way you can win against Kraftman, even when you are right and supply articles. Pointless.

              Comment


              • #52
                I've come to the conclusion that "the lady doth protest too much" ...

                Kraftman is a closet Solaris user!

                He obviously hides the Solaris servers in his basement so that when he tires of Playing on his Gaming machines he can go down and feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that he has some real power available to him.

                His questions imply that he has quite a powerful server down there and is in fact looking to upgrade the server to something with more CPU's in it, otherwise I can't explain his persistent "Can you please tell me the maximum cores I can run Solaris on?" questions.

                It seems to me that he's quite a long way down this line, and just needs to admit his true feelings to the community.

                It'd help in the long run, if he finally admits his love of Solaris, in that he obviously can't be seen to actually go to the website of the current Solaris owners to look at their technical documents, and that getting following links to blogs or news articles just isn't technically detailed enough for him.

                I promise that we won't laugh at you, and that you will be warmly met by this community.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by LightningCrash View Post
                  Yes, 1 image. and they say 144 right now
                  Google "solaris 144 cpus" and there's a PDF from Oracle about Solaris 10 talking about how it runs 144 CPUs right now.
                  Then what's h-online about? I assume it doesn't support 128 core CPUs? Is there any paper showing how many CPUs Solaris can handle?

                  What you're bitching about is the current socket count of SPARC and x86, not the limitations of Solaris itself. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
                  There are no 4096 socket Linux machines, and not even 2048 socket Linux machines.

                  You is trollin
                  boxxyface.jpg
                  If you'll use your brain you'll realize there's no need such machines to be present to Linux support 4096CPUs. It does, since 2.6.27 kernel and this will be extended in the future.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                    You can not make him understand that Solaris scales far above 64 cpus. That is impossible, no matter what facts/links you provide. If you post article to a Solaris machine with 144 cpus, Kraftman will as usual say "it is FUD and lie, it is Sun/Oracle propaganda and not to be trusted". If you post such Sun/Oracle links, you will just trigger Kraftman and he will be even more angry.
                    This is not true what you're trying to show here.

                    Anyway, let us all agree that Solaris scales to only 64 cpus, and Linux scales to 4096. Then Kraftman maybe will be less hostile and stop to spew out his FUD. We are not allowed to ask him to show links, because then he might get angry. Let him continue to FUD that Solaris scales to 64 cpus.
                    No, I don't want to FUD. I want some meaningful links. You're usually posting crap, so you shouldn't be surprised I react like this.

                    Here's the link about Linux:

                    http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_29

                    H-online says Solaris scales only to 64 cores (at heise-online there's about CPUs not cores).

                    Those persons who check up facts, and not trust Kraftman, will see that he is just FUDing. Let us stop this, there is no way you can win against Kraftman, even when you are right and supply articles. Pointless.
                    It's you who FUD Kebbabert, here and at osnews.com. The problem is articles you're showing are not backing your claims. I'm not only the one who thinks SUN has FUD. However, SUN's no more, so SUN doesn't FUD right now.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by jadrevenge View Post
                      It'd help in the long run, if he finally admits his love of Solaris, in that he obviously can't be seen to actually go to the website of the current Solaris owners to look at their technical documents, and that getting following links to blogs or news articles just isn't technically detailed enough for him.
                      I've failed to find anything interesting and you failed to provide what I want.

                      I promise that we won't laugh at you, and that you will be warmly met by this community.
                      Thanks, but this is the last community I want belong to.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by LightningCrash View Post
                        There are no 4096 socket Linux machines, and not even 2048 socket Linux machines.
                        There are 1024 socket machines and even 2.4 kernel supported 256 sockets within a single system image.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by jadrevenge View Post
                          can't be seen to actually go to the website of the current Solaris owners to look at their technical documents
                          Referring to this? http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/prod/so...10?l=en&a=view (Oracle seems to be keeping Sun brand and domain alive for now)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            Then what's h-online about? I assume it doesn't support 128 core CPUs? Is there any paper showing how many CPUs Solaris can handle?
                            Uh what are you smoking? One UltraSPARC T3 will be 128 CPUs by itself.
                            You can already boot an M9K with all 512 cores in one domain, in fact, somebody filed a bug on a problem exacerbated by that process:
                            http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatab...bug_id=6786710

                            I'm sure if it really gives you a hardon you could look at the kernel source and find out how high they cap that integer.

                            Ultimately the sheer number of CPUs doesn't tell you how well it scales, only that the scheduler can thread that many CPUs. I/O, memory bandwidth, etc all come into play.


                            If you'll use your brain you'll realize there's no need such machines to be present to Linux support 4096CPUs. It does, since 2.6.27 kernel and this will be extended in the future.
                            If you'll use your brain you'll realize that you use the word CPUs when you intend to say sockets... you criticize Solaris for not supporting "512 CPUs", meaning sockets, then praise Linux for supporting 4096 CPUs, meaning "cores." But you also poobah anyone who mentions the 512 core M9K or T2 SMP boxes since "that doesn't count."
                            Nothing you say is really relevant in any way. You're just trolling. :P

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              There are 1024 socket machines and even 2.4 kernel supported 256 sockets within a single system image.
                              I'll try my best impersonation of you: But you can't get x86 or SPARC hardware with more than 256 sockets. This means Linux doesn't scale well! :P

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by LightningCrash View Post
                                Uh what are you smoking? One UltraSPARC T3 will be 128 CPUs by itself.
                                You can already boot an M9K with all 512 cores in one domain, in fact, somebody filed a bug on a problem exacerbated by that process:
                                http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatab...bug_id=6786710

                                I'm sure if it really gives you a hardon you could look at the kernel source and find out how high they cap that integer.
                                I was just referring to heise-online like I said before. I suppose it should be documented somewhere which is the upper limit of CPUs Solaris can scale to.

                                Ultimately the sheer number of CPUs doesn't tell you how well it scales, only that the scheduler can thread that many CPUs. I/O, memory bandwidth, etc all come into play.
                                Oh, I'm aware of this. It's Kebabbert who's claiming Linux scales bad when comes to vertical scaling. He's also claiming many other, strange and "trolly" things, but you've probably missed all of these. It seems you're sane, so take look at this, please:

                                http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/SAS_2010...06-15-2010.pdf

                                It shows RHEL 5.4 scales linearly up to 64 cores, so who's the person who says Linux doesn't scale or scales very bad? While it scales linearly and he says "no it doesn't scale" or "it "scales badly" etc. then who's he?

                                If you'll use your brain you'll realize that you use the word CPUs when you intend to say sockets... you criticize Solaris for not supporting "512 CPUs", meaning sockets, then praise Linux for supporting 4096 CPUs, meaning "cores." But you also poobah anyone who mentions the 512 core M9K or T2 SMP boxes since "that doesn't count."
                                Nothing you say is really relevant in any way. You're just trolling. :P
                                I don't 'poobah' when someone says sane things. Like I mentioned I was according to heise-online before. You should realize Kebabbert's trolling and what he says is really not relevant in any way. :> Btw. RHEL 6 supports up to 64,000 cores in a single system image and 128 TB of memory for the kernel and 128 TB for the userspace while Solaris 11 will support 64TB (according to h-online). Just a note.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X