Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farewell To OpenSolaris. Oracle Just Killed It Off.

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

  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jadrevenge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LightningCrash
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X