Originally posted by kraftman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Oracle Has Yet To Clarify Solaris 11 Kernel Source
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostCool. Do you have any proof or links on this? For instance, better stability?
If you've ever made a transaction on a tier2 NO (including being provisioned), you've used linux.
F
Comment
-
I'm gonna hate myself for doing this but..
http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchma...er.epx?num=200 -- sort by SAPs. RHEL is about 15 spaces from the top (you'll notice the top spots are all IBM's "slow" AIX mainframes). The machine used is an HP Proliant with 80/160. If you go a bit further down you'll see RHEL on a similar machine but with 40/80. The scaling is about 85%, or so.
Here's the thread where TheOrqwithVagran was teaching you about large compute systems: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...lity-etc/page6
I hope Oracle is paying you well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by liam View PostI'm gonna hate myself for doing this but..
http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchma...er.epx?num=200 -- sort by SAPs. RHEL is about 15 spaces from the top (you'll notice the top spots are all IBM's "slow" AIX mainframes). The machine used is an HP Proliant with 80/160. If you go a bit further down you'll see RHEL on a similar machine but with 40/80. The scaling is about 85%, or so.
Here's the thread where TheOrqwithVagran was teaching you about large compute systems: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...lity-etc/page6
I hope Oracle is paying you well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by liam View PostI hope Oracle is paying you well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostI seriously doubt it, IIRC 'kebabbert' recieved some Sun promotional gear from their swedish branch at a cristmas party many years ago as a token of appreciation, I remember this because the party was held in Barkarby which is very close to where I used to live (Viksj?). He is some uber Solaris fanboy and I see nothing wrong with that, expect as with all fanboys there's no room for objective thought which makes it pointless to discuss facts with them. Oracle probably doesn't know he exists as they really don't operate on the 'grassroots' level AFAIK.
Has anyone here had experience escalating issues to Oracle for OEL? How did it turn out? Are you able to compare it to RHEL support?
F
Comment
-
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostWell, my memories are a bit different.
Fortunately, this is all backed up to safe offline storage and can be fetched from here, easily overwriting the corrupt data in your head with an accurate recording of what was said ->
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostAs I remembered, we talked about the Oracle M9000 server with 64 cpus.
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostIt had a latency of... 500ns or so?
Originally posted by jabl View PostOn a 64 socket M9000, you have 532 ns for accessing the memory furthest away from the core, which is, I suppose reasonable for a system of that size. For comparison, the worst case latency on a
256 socket Altix UV is about twice that (see above), which again is quite reasonable since there's bound to be a few more router hops with that many sockets (and different network topology). But
look at the local memory latency: 437 ns! Ouch. Simply, ouch. Again, for comparison, on the Altix UV local memory latency is 75 ns, which is a relatively small penalty compared to a simple 2S x86
machine without any directory overhead and, obviously, a pretty small snoop broadcast domain. So we see that the M9000 manages to have a relatively small NUMA factor not by having some super-
awesome technology making remote memory access fast, but mostly by having terrible local memory latency. Not exactly something to brag about, eh.
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostAnd then we compared to a big Linux server with 2048 cpus which was advertised as SMP, and it had a worst case latency of... a very high number.
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostThus, it is not SMP. To have solutions with very good numbers in local cpus, but extremely bad worst case numbers are not really interesting, because that is a SMP cluster. A cluster have very good numbers in a node, but bad numbers in nodes far away. A SMP server have ok numbers in every node, no matter how far away the nodes are. The worst case numbers are limited, and it is difficult to construct a such server with limited down side. Anyone can build a HPC cluster, no challenge.
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostI also showed that those big Linux servers that are advertised as SMP such as the Altix server with 2048 cpus, are basically a HPC cluster running some kind of software that fools Linux to
believe it is SMP. I also said, there are no bigger Linux servers than 64 cpus. I showed this and you agreed on this because you said those big 2048 cpu Linux servers were NUMA. And NUMA are
clusters:
"One can view NUMA as a very tightly coupled form of cluster computing."
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostThus, my recollection is totally different. No need to get upset?
Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
You confessed Linux servers are SMP clusters (you said they are NUMA).
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostAre there no bigger Linux servers than 8 cpus on the market even today?
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostThen you start to talk about number of cores, and you mix the conceptions. Of course, each cpu can have 8-10 cores. But I am not talking about how many cores, I am talking about how many
sockets. Oracle and IBM has 32-64 cpus, each cpu sporting many cores just as x86 cpus. So, why are there only 8-socket Linux servers, but there are 32-64 cpu Unix servers? And please dont mix
cores with cpus now, again. My question is, if Linux scales that well, why are there no 64 cpu Linux servers on the market? Or even 128 cpus? Or 256 cpus? No, the biggest linux servers are 8(?)
sockets. Why?
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostSo, let us revive the old thread were we discussed this. Please give me a link to a post in the old thread, and I will revive that thread and answer to your latest post there. Let us stop
discussing scalability in this thread.
In the previous discussion you made the mistake of immediately classifying me as a "linux proponent", presumably because I corrected you on a number of things you commonly use in your anti-linux posts. I'm not a "proponent" of anything except accurate fact-based decision making when it comes to OS choice, proper use of terminology in discussions, and factually correct statements in such discussions. I'm is a Senior Software Engineer at a large US software company, and we are not by any means a "Linux company" (we're many times bigger than the biggest "Linux company", which would be Red Hat) although we have in the last few years been increasingly using Linux "under the hood" in various products, and more importantly, our customers - the majority of which are HUGE corporations and government agencies - are increasingly using Linux.
Before my current job, I was a *nix consultant and worked with Linux, Solaris and AIX. I've written open-source kernel-level code that is being used and shipped in commercial products from various large companies, including SUN/Oracle. I work with large multiprocessor systems _every day_, and the last year have had quite a few instances of troubleshooting situations where software designs were made without anticipating how fast "large" shared memory multicore systems would become mainstream, or the fact that every new enterprise server coming out is now a NUMA design. This is why I get incredibly annoyed when I see your ill-informed, terminology-mangling posts and post responses to them despite the fact that it's proven about as productive as trying to hammer facts into the head of a moon-hoax believer.
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostBack to topic, where is a list of innovative Linux tech that all OSes have ported or copied? There are none. In fact, entire Linux is a copy of Unix. There are nothing innovative in this copy.
Everything is a copy. Sure, there are some improvements in Linux. But no innovations that I know of. The RCU is not needed to achieve scalability. On the other hand, DTrace is new and innovative,
and most(all?) major OSes have ported or copied it. I have never heard of any Linux tech that has been hyped as much, and copied and ported. Can someone show us a list of such Linux tech?
There are no such list? Everything in Linux is copied from the original: Unix? No innovations in Linux at all?
Comment
Comment