Farewell To OpenSolaris. Oracle Just Killed It Off.

[kebabbert]

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

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.

[jadrevenge]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[nanonyme]

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)

[LightningCrash]

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/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;jsessionid=899255bcc0a320bdd3a22f9c05e4?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

[LightningCrash]

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

[kraftman]

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/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;jsessionid=899255bcc0a320bdd3a22f9c05e4?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_Benchmark_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.