Cool Linux Tricks With Atlas

dpilgrim writes: "Looks like some powerful players want to see Linux going toe to toe with Unix 'big iron.' Would you like to be able to run two Linuxes simultaneously on the same box? Or seemless swap processor and memory in and out of your machine? The Atlas project aims to bring you all that and more. There's a press release from TurboLinux reported here, and a more in-depth article running on SourceForge's Linux on Large Systems Foundry."

Comments

Starcat

[nbvb]

If I'm going to spend lots of money for hardware like this anyway, why would I use Linux?

I'm not trolling, I mean it. What does Linux offer me that Solaris doesn't?

And please avoid the philosophical ramifications -- I have nothing against commercial software, except that 99% of it sucks. :-)

--NBVB

Re:Starcat

[dytin]

Money is money... Every penny that you can save helps you out. Would you willingly through away $1,000 just because you were buying a house on the same day, and $1,000 is only a small percentage of the house? I think not.

Re:Starcat

[Camel Pilot]

Or

"What does Solaris offer me that Linux doesn't"

Re:Starcat

[Hieronymus Howard]

There aren't many reasons at the moment to switch from Solaris to Linux on big-iron hardware. But tomorrow is another matter...

IBM is now marketing Linux as a big-iron OS and is actively selling S/390 mainframes with Linux. I believe that Linux now has a good chance of becoming the standard OS for big-iron systems - IBM and SGI first, then Compaq and HP, and finally Sun. Sun have switched Unixes before. I worked at Sun during the transition from SunOS 4 (BSD) to Solaris (SVR4). If they can do it once, they can do it again. Solaris is also gradually becoming more Linux-like, with a Linux compatability layer and Gnome. This could ease an eventual transition from Solaris to Linux. I'm not saying that this will happen, just that it's becoming increasingly likely.

HH

Re:Starcat

[rgmoore]

I'm not trolling, I mean it. What does Linux offer me that Solaris doesn't?

The primary thing that Linux offers is the ability to run on non-Sun hardware. That's actually bigger than you might think. Consider the following ways that it might be nice:

• Your system is growing. You've been using Linux on comodity x86 hardware to this point, but you now need a bigger machine. Having a bigger machine available that can run Linux should make the transition easier.
• You wish to avoid vendor lock-in. Yes, Sun makes nice machines, but so do other manufacturers like IBM, HP, etc. If every manufacturer has Linux available as an OS, it's much easier to jump to another vendor if circumstances dictate.
• You anticipate that IA64 will be competitive with SPARC in the near future, so you're going to buy comodity IA64 hardware instead of single vendor Sun stuff. Since Solaris is only available for Sun platforms, it won't be an option.

Basically, the fact that big iron manufacturers already have their own OSes is not a strong argument about adding big-iron features to Linux. That's especially true if I'm a manufacturer and I want to break into that very lucrative market. It may very well be cheaper for me to help to develop the needed features in Linux and put that on my new hardware than to develop my own OS. By making those things available in a comodity OS you have the potential to convert big iron into a comodity market, just as comodity OSes for desktop systems helped turn them into comodity goods.

Re:Starcat

[bconway]

You can download the Solaris source code to your heart's content here. You can edit, change, and rebuild all you like if it will really suit your needs. You can send patches back to Sun if you feel so inclined for incorporation. The only thing you can't do is redistribute it, which from what it sounds like your needs are, really isn't that important anyways.

Let's have a count down

[torqer]

Quick, set a timer to see how long it takes until someone drools and says the magic words:

Beowulf cluster

Hmmmm.....

[Peridriga]

Would you like to be able to run two Linuxes simultaneously on the same box?

On KDE I just push the big button with the 2 on it...

Re:Do you need special MOBO to hot swap memory/cpu

[zeno_2]

Atlas seems to be relying upon this new Intel chipset and the Mckinley processor (one of intels new 64bit processors). This new chipset will support hotswapping it sounds like, and any motherboard maker that would use that chipset, would make sure that the slots could do that. So yes you do need a special mobo, but it wont be available for a while.

focus of 2.5 series

[Proud Geek]

This goes hand in hand with a lot of the work planned for 2.5 to make it scale to larger systems. Linus feels that the current architecture is just about ideal for SMP's of any size, but there are really two obstacles to Linux working on big iron and competing against solutions from IBM, Sun and others. The first is scalability to NUMA machines. This issue is being addressed by the kernel development team. The second is support for the reliability features that the really high end hardware provides. That's the work described here. Together they will make Linux the winning combination even on the very high end!

What we need

[TheEviscerator]

It's important to remember that much of Linux's competition comes not from the dreaded MS, but from commercial UNIX vendors, like Sun and IBM.

Most companies that currently employ Linux tend to use it for things like DNS, Web servers, and file sharing. Fitting Linux with enterprise features is critical in moving beyond these types of services and truly entering the enterprise world of hot plugging, scalability, and *proven* reliability.

While I realize that its reliability is more than proven to most of us here, it's important that it be proven to executives as well. Not only must it be reliable, but proven companies must have track records of standing behind the product 100%.

One concern I've heard voiced is that no company providing support for Linux will take ultimate responsiblity for a product that isn't theirs.

Get a few more years and services behind Linux, and we should see it explode.

Re:What we need

[Lumpy]

One concern I've heard voiced is that no company providing support for Linux will take ultimate responsiblity for a product that isn't theirs
NO company will take ultimate responsibility for products that are theirs.

Microsoft, SCO,SUN SiliconGraphics. everyone has in the license that they are not responsible for anything for any reason.

this concern needs to be met with a direct response that no company will, even for their own product.

Re:What we need

[conway]

While I realize that its reliability is more than proven to most of us here, it's important that it be proven to executives as well.

No, its not proven, at all!

Because you ran your Linux boxen at home and work without powering down for a year doesn't prove anything. You haven't gotten your machines even close to the level of load that enterprise server machines handle each day. Also, most of us run uniprocessor or 2-CPU machines. Not too much stuff is being done on the 32-CPU enterprise machines with Gigs and Gigs of RAM, hundreds of disks, network connections, and PCI buses.

Linux has not been proven in these environments at all. And even if you say that it runs on those machines, when you install an OS on a $1 million machine, you better damn be sure its proven to be reliable.

Now, big Uni*es -- Sun, IBM, HP, etc. have entire teams of people running stress tests on these machines, and (as a former developer of HP-UX) I know that developers must run through at least 12 hours of stress testing a system (thats a system running through automated test suites that excercise every subsystem, and get system load averages to about 200 consistently) when making kernel changes. These things are TESTED

Noone does that with linux, because noone wants to do it -- its not fun work at all. But the companys do do it, and must do it, since they must guarantee 99.99% uptime for the "executives" to buy the system.

So don't blame them for not jumping on Linux.

Other idea

[ocie]

Would you like to be able to run two Linuxes simultaneously on the same box?

Actually, I'd like to be able to run one Linux on N boxes, or M Linuxes on N boxes where M!=N. Just immagine a cluster of 50 machines where the failure of one machine has no effect on the operation of the cluster as a whole. There are some good projects in this area, but I don't think they can quite offer this kind of transparency.

Increased system reliability in Linux 2.5

[cpeterso]

I read that the Linux kernel developers are planning a number of kernel improvements to increase overall system reliability. Some of the minor updates include a completely new VM, new block IO layer, new VFS layer, new kernel NFS server, new device naming management, new SCSI lyaer, new IDE layer, and an in-kernel web server (khttpd and TUX) for improved system reliability.

Just like the similar complete rewrites in Linux 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4, Linux once again finally be a winning combination on the very high end!

Solaris and Hardware

[einhverfr]

OK. Technically, you can run Solaris on x86 hardware and IA64. However, it sucks. On Sparc, it is decent, but many people affectionately call Solaris on x86 "Slowaris."

Now look at the architectures that Linux runs on:
PowerPC
Alpha
x86
IA64
Clawhammer
Power4
etc.

This means that you have much more choice about what you run the Linux machine on.

Also, I think the parent's point about ease of transition being the point of using Linux was missed by you. I would not run my business off Solaris on x86 anymore than I would use Mac OS9 on my web server... Although it is different on the SPARC, Linux and BSD are still the choice *Nix on x86 hardware. If you are running servers on x86, then you may want to move to Linux servers on big iron because the transition would be easier.

Interesting.

[mindstrm]

A lot of people are going on and on about what linux can do that solaris can't.. cross platform, open source, etc...

But I think your question was, given the Sparc platform.. why not use solaris?

At this point, you are right. Solaris is where it's at.. I mean, if you are buying Sun.. you obviously want more than just a fast machine... you want the support, etc.

But... as to why I prefer using linux to solaris, in general...
Linux is the new reference platform. new tools are developed on linux first, then ported to other unixes (the mahjority, anyway).
The number of tools quickly & easily available for linux vastly outnumbers the same for Solaris. Yes, you can get, compile, and run pretty much everything on solaris.. it's easy to port form linux to solaris.. but it's still easier to use linux.

Linux is open.. I just, well, I DO like that. Sure, I'm not gonna go out and modify a kernel.. but it means I'm not necessarily stuck with what Sun tells me I'm stuck with.

Would I buy a server farm of solaris boxes and run linux on it now? no.
Would I if Linux sparc supportw as as good as it's intel support? probably (once SPM is fixed)

Looks more like Intel toe to toe with 'big iron'

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Looks like some powerful players want to see Linux going toe to toe with Unix 'big iron.'

This isn't a linux issue. It's a hardware issue.

The significant thing about 'big iron' is that it's an enabling hardware technology.

Once you have it you can write firmware and software that creates the illusion that the hardware never fails

Until you have it, you can't.

The hardware described looks about right - if they handled machine checks properly. (And the fact that they even used the term implies they either did or are trying.) Basic idea: The machine catches ANY error, with enough state saved that you can:

CORRECT the error

IDENTIFY any failed components,

MOVE tasks to non-failed components or reconfigure the failing components to limp along,

NOTIFY the OS of any problem, so it can do things like start moving things off a dying component, and

pick up the computation where it left off WITHOUT the error.

When you can do this you can write a modified Linux, Windows, BeOS, or what-have-you that can do the things a mainframe can. (But you'll need to have a REALLY reliable OS for your starting point - you're now talking uptimes measured in decades. The software better not take the system down in the absense of hardware trouble, and there IS NO hardware troube. B-) )

Hot-swappable parts are more a side-effect than something key. You have to be able to hot-swap to replace a broken part with the system live. Once you have the ability to hot-swap in a replacement for a failed part and add it back into a running domain, it's trivial to generalize that to "fix" parts that were "bad" because they had never been installed.

Partitioning is also implied: You need a minimum of two domains ("virtual machine" subsets of the total device) - working (where the live system is) and diagnostic (where the maintainence guys check out the parts). Once you have that mechanism, making a LARGE number of working domains (with varying amounts of resource, including full or time-shared CPUs) is straightforward.