Slashdot Mirror
Linux-Mandrake Available For UltraSPARC
Gael Duval, one of the Mandrake developers, dropped me a line to say that "Linux-Mandrake 7.0 for UltraSPARC is finally available. Although
it's a complete port (graphical installation included) of
Linux-Mandrake 7.0/final, it could still have some bugs, so please
consider the current UltraSPARC version as beta-software. You can download the ISO image from our Web site."
Then we can IPO and make mad cash! w00p!
At my work, we have a handful of Ultra-10's that we're decommissioning as servers to replace with E250s and so forth, mostly because we'd rather do that than play around with cramming SCSI cards into the U10's to get more disk space, and we're starting to need enterprise-class hardware for these roles.
Those machines would make nice desktop boxes (that being really what they were designed for), and Mandrake is a better desktop daily-use OS than Solaris for the average person.
(*shrug) Just one place this might be welcome here in a month or three.
--
From the top of my head (not so long ago someone asked me this very question):
But I have to admit, the Linux Sparc and UltraSparc installations I've done (Debian) have been real fun!
It's FreeBSD that had a performace advantage over Linux on x86. I doubt NetBSD ever did, despite (I assume) sharing the same stack, because of the lack of emphasis on performance in that version of BSD. (A BSD expert might correct me here - is the Network performace of NetBSD & FreeBSD identical?)
While I have not tested it, I would be surprised if the top four positions were not held by the four BSDs. The exception to this might be OpenBSD since it does all sorts of secuirty sanity checking.
Well,
I always think of that also being some kind of R&D. Linux will mature more and more. The SMP always gets more finegrained. There are more and more really cool Open Source apps/features for Linux which first would have to be ported to Solaris.
Take for example the new NWFS (Novell-File System), ReiserFS etc. Or this SCO app-server (tarantula?).
It's open source, it's linux, it will be mature.
True, linux isn't as "enterprise" as Solaris is, but it's slowly eating it's way up there.
I bet Sun has no chance in staying ahead up to 8 Prozessors past Linux 2.8/3.0. But it's valuable to have linux available _now_ on sun-hardware because the developers can design advances with portability in mind and test them. Not to say that linux on UltraSparc isn't worthy now, I just want to point out that it can only get better, both kernel and app related.
That's what I'm talking about. Since the (web serving) performace of Linux on x86 was contrained by the TCP/IP stack, I'm wondering if the different hardware of a Sparc would have made much difference - all that extra Bus I/O (if that is what the "architecture advantage is"?) might not have made much difference if the TCP/IP stack got saturated early, like it did on x86.
It's FreeBSD that had a performace advantage over Linux on x86. I doubt NetBSD ever did, despite (I assume) sharing the same stack, because of the lack of emphasis on performance in that version of BSD. (A BSD expert might correct me here - is the Network performace of NetBSD & FreeBSD identical?)
How the TCP/IP performance on the Sparc ports compared to the Intel ports of Linux (I'm thinking about the Mindcraft benchmarks here... would the different hardware have made any difference?)
I remember back in '95 or so, when the SPARC port was just "finished" David Millar posted some benchmarks showing it had better TCP/IP than Solaris on the same hardware. Does anyone have that URL (or an updated version?)
If this is for real, Solaris has some pretty amazing performace.
I'm a little surprised that BSD did so badly though, esp. since people are always boasting on /. about the TCP/IP performance of BSD. Why does the multi-processor effect BSD so badly on NetBench?
Thi s paper compared x86 Solaris, BSD and Linux back in '95.
Summary:
Our results show that:
Linux has the best performance on file metadata operations because it updates metadata asynchronously;
FreeBSD has the best network performance;
Solaris' performance generally lies between that of the other two systems
Please bear in mind it is pretty old, though.
(please don't turn this into a BSD vs Linux flamewar)
The FAQ on http://www.ultralinux.org gives a lot of info about Linux on SPARC and UltraSPARC hardware. SunOS emulation is provided through the iBCS2 package and there have been people to run the SunOS Netscape through this. You still need Solaris libraries for the programs to work, but that shouldn't be a problem.
However, if you're running a prog (like an IDS or a firewall) that's supposed to be recieving a lot of packets, Solaris is not necessarily the best idea. BSD is. It would be nice to have the hardware flexibility of Sun's machines, and the OS power of Linux & BSD. I think this is a great idea.
>>>Uniformity? There are some differences that matter. Think for example a situation where upper management is stupid enough to decide on Sun boxes but the people who are actually going to use them know zip about Solaris (administration wise) Impossible you say? I've seen it.
Fair enough, that makes a lot of sense. Ideally, you wouldn't by Suns without someone to support them, but if you are a Linux shop that aquired Suns, this option makes sense. Why a Linux shop would buy Suns is a different question, although I could see a situation where an NT shop whose IT staff includes a bunch of geeks who played with Linux aquire Suns because management wants Unix... in that case, this scenario makes a lot of sense.
>>>Not all the Sun hardware is super high end. There are some pretty low end Ultras, on which Solaris is a molasse. The nickname Slowaris is not just a pretty joke. Upper management (see previous point) got you stuck with a pile of expensive crap, you have to deal with it.
My more Unix loving friends rip on the speed of the Sun workstations, so I'm inclined to agree with you. This scenario makes sense. Although I'm curious, would it make more sense to buy Sun workstations of vanilla Intel/AMD workstations in this scenario? A friend who is a real Solaris lover has a HP Pavillion running Solaris x86 because he wanted Solaris and the HP gave him the most power for his budget. Sun's hardware is amazing in large part because of well designed chip architecture that supports a very scalable number of SMP processors, which makes a difference on the high end. Given the size of and value of the x86 market, can Sun's processors compete in the midrange, or does the high-end x86 just have more power?
>>>"On Sun hardware, Solaris is robust, Linux is not" is just FUD. You are not going to install Linux on that Enterprise 10k, but Linux on a Ultra 30 is a really good option.
Is it? The reason, in part, that Linux is so solid (I've been amazed with the robustness, and my attempts to administer a personal system are amusing at best) is the millions of eyeballs theory. Not only do lots of people fix things, you have a lot of users who can notice problems. Also, because Linux developers tend to be accessible and users help newbies, bugs are very likely to be reported. While bugs in MS systems tend not to get reported because users wouldn't no where to begin.
Sun/Linux however is a small niche, so it wouldn't have the HUGE support that Intel/Linux has. Solaris is heavily tested by Sun on their hardware platforms, and given that there hardware is sold in certain configurations with the OS, I trust that they have a great ability to debug and test their systems, and that bugs when reported are dealt with quickly. Does Sun/Linux have the same situation?
Alex
Running free and public domain software is NOT dependant upon running Linux. You can compile those tools for any Unix/Unix-like system. The question here is:
if I want a Linux box, do I buy an Intel based system or a Sparc.
if I have a Sun box, do I run Solaris or Linux
In the real world, people don't do things because they have the machines (machines bought for a purpose tend to stick with it until being decommissioned), they get the machines to run the task.
If you follow the intelligent thread of discussion on this topic, we were discussing the merits of getting Sun hardware to run Linux on them. If you want to run the daemons that you are discussing, wouldn't it make more sense to get a vanilla x86 box and run Linux? The Ultra 5 is pretty slow for a server, and a K6 or Celeron based PC for $600 would be as fast as the $1300 (people say, I saw it for $2K when I checked their site today) Ultra 5.
So, why spend $700 more on your "low end" server? If you are looking cheap low end, don't x86 machines make more sense?
Alex
Solaris is very finegrained for good SMP performance, but Linux wipes the floor with it when running on one or 2 CPU's.. anymore then that, and Slowlaris makes more sense...
;-)
(as long as you don't do someting dumb like run Gnome on it... Ok, I use Gnome sometimes, but it is a quite resource hungry setup. If you want more speed, use afterstep or just about anything else
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
The above note is definitely a fake.
I actually worked for Mandrake until some time last summer. There have been a couple of problems, but no plans whatsoever to go proprietary back then, and I'm absolutely certain this did not change (I may work for the competition now, but I still know the people around at Mandrake).
Anonymous coward: Do you work for Microsoft, by any chance?
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Running Linux on Sparc hardware makes sense, UltraSparc hardware, less so. As I understand it, Linux runs faster then Solaris, although it lacks the robustness and scalability to multiple processors. As a result, older Sun machines that would be decommissioned can find a little more life left with Linux.
My question is this, would anyone buy Sun Hardware to run Linux? Sun machines are generally more reliable and robust, better tested, and better supported. However, what would be the point of running Linux on one.
With Solaris, you have many Enterprise level tools that just aren't available for Linux. Additionally, any software with source can be compiled on either system, most Solaris admins that I know start by downloading and installing the GNU tools. With Linux, you have that same software.
Shrink wrapped software for Linux is all i386 only, so Sun users won't benefit from these improvements. Overall, I'm wondering what the point is of UltraSparc/Linux.
If the purpose is merely: because we can, that makes sense, it is neat. If it has a real purpose in a real computing environment, I'm curious as to what it is.
It seems to be, that as of now, corporations that are using Linux are mostly using them in low end servers because it is cheap. They put it on several hundred dollar vanilla servers. Sun Hardware is found in corporations that spend the IT dollars on quality. While I'm not suggesting the Linux is rubish, what makes Linux a better selection than Solaris other than it being free? While freedom is very important for people, for a company, it seems less so.
I'm curious, what is the business case for using Sun/Linux as opposed to Intel/Linux, AMD/Linux, or Sun/Solaris, all of which seem more logical choices to myself.
Alex