Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farewell To OpenSolaris. Oracle Just Killed It Off.

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

  • #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


            • #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

                      Working...
                      X