Linux hacker compares Solaris kernel code:

You usually need to hear the accused's side of the story too before forming a final opinion:

http://apcmag.com/interview_with_con...he_desktop.htm

Ok, thanks for sharing this.

[kebabbert]

Shit, this took 2 hours to write. I dont have time for this shit. There are umpteen articles and quotes on Linux devs saying that Linux has bad code quality. And other devs too. I know I am right; Linux is inferior and unstable. Just read what Con Kolivas wrote. And can the Linux devs stop attacking Solaris? For isntance they said that ZFS is badly designed, because it is monolithic and violates layers "rampant layering violation". But BTRFS is the same, it is monolithic, a violates layers. But when BTRFS clones ZFS, it is a good design. Can they just stop attacking Solaris? And stop attacking BSD? Read what Kraftman, aka OpenSLOWlaris, aka Pawlerson writes. He accused the Boston bombers to be OpenBSD developers.

Linus T has some bad serious attitude problems, attacking everyone. "OpenBSD devs are masturbating monkeys, wish Solaris to die, etc". I dont understand why people does not see that Linus has attitude problems? They just cheer for him "that is the way to go! we need a strong leader! etc". Hell no, he has some bad people skills.

[kebabbert]

As I am also from sweden (as Kebabbert) I can tell you that no, his name is not 'Orvar Korvar', which is a (imo boring) 'joke' name in the same vein as Kebabbert (kebab + bert).

True. "Orvar Korvar", is like... "Donald Duck". I remember that Kraftman posted this same sentence too. He said he had googled on me, and at last found my real name: "Orvar Korvar". So, Kraftman must be the same guy as OpenSLOWlaris.

Hence even now when Open Solaris is all but dead,

The Sun distro OpenSolaris is dead, true. But the source code was forked and today the kernel is called Illumos. Those Solaris hackers that quit Oracle, have joined Illumos. For instance, half the ZFS team, all the DTrace team, etc. Illumos have new ZFS functionality that even Oracle does not have.

and Oracle is putting their energy behind Linux, Kebabbert still is carrying on his fight against Linux, which he sees as Solaris 'enemy' (ironic in how Linux is also open source which is what once attracted him to Solaris).

Linus T and all Linux devs have always attacked Solaris, and wished it to die. Too bad if that would happen, which OS would Linux clone from then? No ZFS, no DTrace, no systemd, no Open vSwitch, etc.

But just as trying to have a conversation with 'slowlaris' is totally pointless, so is trying to have a conversation with kebabbert, you can point to any number of facts, he can lose every argument (as in the linked previous discussion with 'TheOrqwithVagrant'), but he will just lick his wounds and be back. Logic or arguments will never sway him, you'd have a better shot at having RMS embrace proprietary software or Ballmer to open source Windows (under GPL even).

Maybe you are wrong? I challenge you, I challenge ALL of you, to show me a Linux server with 16 or 32 or 64 cpus for sale. Come on, how hard can it be? Just google a bit, and I will shut up. You know that mathematicians demand proof. And if you call me ugly names, but dont show any links to such a server - that is no way to convince a mathematician. If no one of you can show me such a link, maybe you should shut up the talk about Linux scaling well? There is not even a 16 or 32 or 64 cpu server for sale! Maybe you are wrong. Maybe I am right.

[kebabbert]

Well, for one there's that M5-32 with Oracle VM Server--which is a Linux-Xen system.
But that's probably not what you meant.

And that is NUMA; if you don't believe me, believe Oracle:

(Quoting page 12 of http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/se...re-1920556.pdf)

Ok I believe you. I will stop talking about that SMP and HPC stuff. Clearly my terminology is not really correct. I know what I want to say, but I dont say it correctly.

I am trying to say that there are no "single, fat" Linux servers with 16 or 32 cpus for sale. This IS true. The problem I have is: what do I mean with "single fat" Linux server? Clearly it can not be translated to "SMP". I need to read a bit and then come back. But my point is true and has always been true: There are no "single fat" Linux servers for sale with 16 or 32 cpus. But there are Linux servers for sale with 1000s of cpus and 10s of TB RAM. It looks like this:

Linux servers 1-8 cpus for sale. TRUE.
Linux servers with 512 - 8192 cores for sale. TRUE. (These are clusters)
Nothing in between. No 16 or 32 cpu Linux servers for sale. Why?

Linux developer Ted Tso wrote in a blog that until recently, 24-32 cores (not cpus) where considered as exotic hardware that no Linux dev had access to. So, how can Linux scale well on 24 cores, when no one can optimize for such servers?



I need to define "single, fat" Linux server better. Clearly I can not call them "SMP" servers. All large servers today with 32-64 cpus, mix tech from NUMA and SMP it seems. So I need to stop saying that. But my point remains: there are no Linux servers for sale with 16 cpus. Or 32 or 64. But there are 2048 core servers for sale (they must be clusters).

[kebabbert]

Looking at the specs, it looks to me that it's actually a question of memory bound vs cpu bound: the Sunfire has 256 GB of RAM vs the Proliant's 128 GB. Besides that, there are different RDBMSs in use (Oracle vs MaxDB), and the Sunfire has a slightly slower CPU.

And of course there's one more point:
Linux in 2009 is not the Linux of today. SLES 10 used kernel 2.6.16, and current is 3.9; there have been several changes in the scheduler since then.

The Linux 128 GB server used faster RAM dimms, that is the reason Linux used 128GB. You can install 256GB RAM on that server, but the benchmarking team chose not to.

And Solaris 11 has changed too compared to Soalris 10, just as Linux has.

[kebabbert]

Thanks for trying to refute my point with facts.

Ok, I mistook 8 cpus for 8 cores. There are not many 8+ socket servers to find at all with google.

Here is one up to 32 socket one with HP-UX or linux: http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/q.../11717_na.HTML

This server is a HP server made for HP-UX. They have compiled Linux to it, and offer Linux on it. But it is not a Linux server. It is a HP-UX server.

For benchmarks I only found the blog like website of this guy: http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/619...P-and-Sun.html
But they never tested on the same machine so I wouldn't give too much. Also they are all 4-5 years old.

This benchmark shows that Linux used the same cpus, running at 2.8GHz. Solaris used the same cpus, running at 2.6GHz.

Any recent benchmarks on the same machine?

I showed a link with benchmarks on same hardware.

edit: IBM's System z series is also provided with Linux. I think it is mostly expensive for all the special hardware for I/O and the backwards compatible zOS and stuff like that.

z/Linux has been ported, but runs ontop z/OS (as I understand it) virtualized. Mainframes are not Linux servers, they are running z/OS.



See? My point is that there are no Linux servers offering 16 or 32 cpus for sale. Why? These servers costs many millions, and clearly there is a market opportunity. If RedHat or someone could sell such a Linux server for only half a million, all large investment banks, telcos, etc would switch at once. But no, there are no such servers. Why is that? You tell me. Nobody does not want to be rich?

[XorEaxEax]

As I am also from sweden (as Kebabbert) I can tell you that no, his name is not 'Orvar Korvar', which is a (imo boring) 'joke' name in the same vein as Kebabbert (kebab + bert). As for his Solaris zelotry, as I recall he first found the light with Solaris when Sun was open sourcing their 'technologies'.

He (kebabbert) was (or atleast claimed to be) a proponent of open source and he thought this was a great move by Sun, but like is the case with certain fervent supporters (asperger syndrome?), they can totally identify themselves with something, which in this case is Solaris. Hence even now when Open Solaris is all but dead, and Oracle is putting their energy behind Linux, Kebabbert still is carrying on his fight against Linux, which he sees as Solaris 'enemy' (ironic in how Linux is also open source which is what once attracted him to Solaris).

So he is still searching the web for anything which he may spin as 'proof' of Solaris superiority, and sad as that may be it's certainly no worse than the pure trolling of however is behind the 'slowlaris','bsdsucks' etc accounts.

But just as trying to have a conversation with 'slowlaris' is totally pointless, so is trying to have a conversation with kebabbert, you can point to any number of facts, he can lose every argument (as in the linked previous discussion with 'TheOrqwithVagrant'), but he will just lick his wounds and be back. Logic or arguments will never sway him, you'd have a better shot at having RMS embrace proprietary software or Ballmer to open source Windows (under GPL even).

[ChrisXY]

Ok, I mistook 8 cpus for 8 cores. There are not many 8+ socket servers to find at all with google.

Here is one up to 32 socket one with HP-UX or linux: http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/q.../11717_na.HTML

For benchmarks I only found the blog like website of this guy: http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/619...P-and-Sun.html
But they never tested on the same machine so I wouldn't give too much. Also they are all 4-5 years old.

Any recent benchmarks on the same machine?

edit: IBM's System z series is also provided with Linux. I think it is mostly expensive for all the special hardware for I/O and the backwards compatible zOS and stuff like that.

[intellivision]

What a stupid name, fitting for an anti-Linux/pro-proprietary troll. Seriously, who gave you that name, the nurse at the orphanage in which your teenage mom dumped you because you were so ugly?

Did your mum drop you on your head?
Seriously, you don't agree that ogg should be permissively licensed because it might increase uptake, even though RMS and everyone else agrees with it.
So we've already worked out that you have absolutely no life, and you post links that don't back up your claims. In fact, the one you supplied didn't link to anything.
Do you program?
Do you even have proof that you program?
If you don't, what gives you the right to viciously criticise the works of others and not just to the creator?

[Ibidem]

In the 24 post in this thread: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...nchmarks/page3

Kebabbart's true name is Orvar Korvar.

So, Kebabbart == Orvar Korvar. What a stupid name, fitting for an anti-Linux/pro-proprietary troll...

You probably know what I think about Linux vs Solaris (I'd enjoy a Pentium with Linux more than an Opteron with Solaris), but your spew still makes me sick.
Here's a hint: FUD is not long-term sustainable...see the "Halloween Documents" for an illustration.

Anyhow: I looked at the benchmarks mentioned there. I assume these are the basis of the "Linux starts to degrade at 8 cpus" claim.
It's two systems, Sunfire/Solaris 10 vs Proliant/SLES 10, and the basis of the claim appears to be that the Sunfire gets noticeably better response times and has higher CPU utilization, and is thus Solaris is better at scheduling.
Looking at the specs, it looks to me that it's actually a question of memory bound vs cpu bound: the Sunfire has 256 GB of RAM vs the Proliant's 128 GB.
Besides that, there are different RDBMSs in use (Oracle vs MaxDB), and the Sunfire has a slightly slower CPU.

And of course there's one more point:
Linux in 2009 is not the Linux of today. SLES 10 used kernel 2.6.16, and current is 3.9; there have been several changes in the scheduler since then.