Slashdot Mirror
Cheap PPC Linux Machines From IBM
ksheff writes "According to this story, IBM is planning on introducing low-end SMP servers and deskside machines based on the PPC970. The machines would be able to run Linux and AIX. A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
Unless I'm missing something, this could definately serve as a linux workstation. The power of the new G5 with linux, what could be better?
Now if I only had a spare $3,500 to spend on it...
In linux libertas
- Identify a product which is not being provided, but which there is a demand for.
- Sell that product to consumers at a price which is reasonable, but higher than what it costs you to produce each unit.
- Profit!
Hmm, that sounds different from normal somehow. Maybe they're on to something here.A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
With those sorts of prices, they're going to get it, too! The cheapest Itanium 2 system money can buy (HP zx2000) costs $3500, more or less, and would run like a dog compared to e.g. a 4-way 1.6GHz PPC970 system.
Looks like Intel's competition is going to be coming more and more from IBM, not AMD...
We just heard on Slashdot that the new 3 billion plant wasn't living up to expectations, so IBM has to capitalize on this oppurtunity.
This is also a good thing for the mac community because now the G5 will get a lot more "work" done on it, because IBM will have to compete with other 64-bit manufacturers on a broader stage than just the Mac arena.
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Quad proc OSX in MOL on IBM? Sounds tasty to me!
This isn't meant for you running Mac OS X on it. Its meant for you to run Linux on. Besides, I'd guess Mac On Linux will probably run fine. With a bit of hacking, you could probably run OS X, if you really felt like it.
I really doubt that people wanting to run Mac OS X are the targeted group here. It is, as IBM says it is, for servers and Linux desktops.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
I wonder if this will push Apple to stick a couple more chips in the Power Macs? Maybe IBM's plan was to put together a cheap system to get Apple to buy more chips from them.
It would be interesting to see how they compare with the PowerMac. With a 4 way system that costs only $500 more then apple's two ways this could provide some good competition for in the scientific/heavy compute PPC niche. Maybe this will show the way for 4 way xservs/highend workstations from apple.
Could IBM pose a challenge to Apple in the notebook market with PPC-driven machines? Since the new PPC chip runs cooler while drawing less power, it might fit the bill. Perhaps someone more familiar with PPC architecture could discuss the technical viability of such a beast.
As for economic/consumer viability, right now nearly all the software I use is source-available (currently through Gentoo, on my Compaq Intel notebook). Nevertheless, iin the future, if I need to use pre-compiled, 3rd party software like Mathematica, IDL, etc. PPC+Linux might prove to be too small a market even with IBM's backing -- vendor "lock-out."
Unless it's prices significantly lower than Apple's offerings, I wouldn't bet on it as a workstation. MacOSX already offers a great kernel with an even better GUI, and right now I wouldn't put money on Linux against that for a work desktop.
The server market, on the other hand will definitely get a great boost. Cheap PPC970 and 64-bit = heaven for databases, web, and app servers.
That's fine. You probably don't want or need ECC memory, the ability to compile and run 64-bit userland software, IBM's excellent VisualAge C/C++/Fortran compilers (xlc/xlC/xlf90) or a rackmount case. And that's fine - you're more than welcome to buy an Apple. I've preordered one myself! But if IBM delivers on this promise, guess what I'll be recommending to my boss that we have in the machine room. The same G5 I'll have on my desk? Not exactly. :)
The memory bus speeds seemingly leave Intel in the dust. Pair those chips with a nice SATA RAID storage solution and a really fast PCI bus and those should be some seriously fast machines. Do they have linux working on the G5 yet?
I think it's clear from this just how much IBM fears SCO!
:-P
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I had it running fine on my G4 PPC with Gentoo Linux/PPC, which was running MOL (Mac-On-Linux) with Classic, where I had Virtual PC with RH Linux/x86.
By the way, it wasn't that slow as you think. Just a bit... useless? Why would I need x86 binaries if for all functinality of a server I need I have sources to compile?
Less is more !
If Intel and MS proceed to only allowing signed software this could provide a nice escape path for Linux users
Don't they know that SCO 0\/\/n0R5 both Linux and AIX?
</HUMOR>
HUMOR tags added for the humor impaired, to comply with the ADA.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
the PPC970 is a 64 bit cpu...
How can you compair a Athlon to a G5?
Yes If you want a cheap dual smp rig then Athlons are fine. But if you want a powerfull workstation, backed by a huge company, THis is a pretty cool idea.
im sure since IBM is the creator of a G5 they are going to be able to support them better than anything else they sell. Companies are going to see this and they will realize that these machines will be quick and easy for IBM to repair.
Oh Sure these companies can call Bob's computer warehouse, but we all know how much better IBMs support will be....
If I worked for a Multimillion dollar company I wouldnt want the computer repair guy going to walmart to pick up spare parts for their new server/workstation.....
keanmarine.com
enemy-territory]$ file et.x86
et.x86: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (GNU/Linux), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
>>>try to run that on a ppc and tell me how it worked?
Too true. Still you proved my point more. Yes, Linux on PPC backed by IBM is "Cool", but right now, EVERYTHING is based on the standard of X86 compatibility.
I have a choice if I go with X86. I like Linux, and if my clients like linux, all the better. I can offer it. HOWEVER, if they, for some reason, go with MSWindows, I can fdisk linux, and install Windows.
And remember, MS axed all but their X86 line back in going from NT4=>NT5. I know, on Apple PPC, there's Linux or MacOS. Guess what though? The way Apple's going through 3'rd party developers, I dont trust them. And I certainly wouldnt invest in their computers until I know they'll survive getting rid of MS, Adobe and others.
Point recap:
PPC Linux. Little hardware accessable. Nice server. Expensive.
X86 Linux. Mucho hardware usable. Very configurable. Cheap Cheap Cheap. Well supported by MANY vendors.
These servers are for real sysadmins, and to run real server applications, not a GUI.
Less is more !
OS X/Darwin is entirely optimized for ppc and is developed entirely towards that end. ppc Linux is a port from something else (albeit a good one)
NextStep was originally written for the 68k, thence ported to SPARC, x86, and PA-RISC. So PPC was the fifth architecture the basic underlying system has been ported to. So if you don't like ports, you had better throw away your Mac and switch to Windows now (oh wait sorry...the NT kernel was actually developed for the i860 first).
And remember, Linux will be a native, fully supported OS for these machines alongside AIX -- the firmware will be designed to boot Linux, and all the hardware will be fully supported.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Does anybody else think that "quad PPC" sounds like some kind of super-weapon?
So either you don't own an iBook, haven't used OS X and are just lying about blue beachballs, or you do own an iBook and see the beachball so little you don't even know what it looks like.
Which is it?
You are on crack. There are no boards for a quad xeon on pricewatch for under $500. Try 'dual' not four. There is a big difference last time I checked. Besides 4 xeons on a shared bus run like dogs. I believe the word is contention. Especially when they are only running 533 bus speeds. You would almost have to turn off prefetching to get any scalability.
However, if the IBM Machine is geared towards business server use it's going to have an ATI 8MB hard mounted video card with no AGP slot.
Why put an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro in a machine that is going to show a login: prompt at best?
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Uh, sorry to piss on your cornflakes, but Linux is already faster than OS X. Besides, I think that IBM knows a thing or two about systems optimization, I think that if they can't get performance-related PPC patches into the kernel proper, they'll just fork and release their own sets of patches. Remember, you're dealing with IBM here, and they don't fuck around when they release a system.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
...is that you're comparing a build-it-yourself solution to an OEM solution. The OEM solution means you don't have to spend the time and effort to build the machine, that there is a (hopefully) semi-intelligent person on the other end of an 800 number to provide support, and that if the machine goes berserk, they will be there to fix it under warranty. Two very different situations, IMO.
...for a machine that will kick the crap out of this great machine IBM will release...
Based on everything I've read thus far, it seems to me the PPC970 cheaps are substantially more efficient than their P4 counterparts at the same clock speed. Because of that, I hardly doubt a quad Xeon 2.4 system would "kick the crap out" of a quad PPC970 2.0 system. It seems you're exaggerating a bit--or perhaps you have something to backup your claim?
And when Opteron comes out...
Opteron has been out for close to 3 months now. Machines are available from several vendors. Google is your friend.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
As we all know, .... x 1
$3500! = 3500 x 3499 x 3498 x 3497
That's reeeally expensive!
What's really important is if we see IBM release a real compiler for the 970. gcc is a complete joke on PPC.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
How can you compair a Athlon to a G5?
Pretty easily. 32 bit CPUs can run 64 bit code just fine, they just need to split the operations in two. But most programs hardly ever use 64-bit ints, so it's not really a big deal. Its entirely possible for a fast 32bit machine to beat a slower 64 bit machine for lots of purposes.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
True, it does explain some things. Mainly I se this as a push into the "We want low end, but server prices" pricing cap. I'm thinking of the Low End Sun's, Itaniums, SGI's non-X86,HP and other low end server stations. In that category, PPC running AIX or Linux sounds nice.
It's just crossing that low'end barrier is the killer. If you can make your app into a threaded app, you can send each thread to a processor and run them all at once. Beowulf. And you can use the really cheap stuff to do it it too. Google's already proved that X86 stuf is reliable for that kind of operation too.
It's when you need heavy transaction power is when you really go with AIX. Banks, Airports, and other time critical lookup and registration is when you need low-latency, high cpu and ram that super's have.
I still fail to understand why you'd want PPC linux rather than X86 Linux. You've just got more choices with X86.
Soong sez:Ummm....well then (from the article):Yah. RTFA.
IBM developed the chip, which means they developed a mobo along with it for testing. Apple had to make their own design, and they had to make it look good, and be quiet, home-friendly, and stylish. IBM gets to stamp out big ugly boxes, because really, unless you're talking about a secretary, no one in the office ever says "That is a nice lookin' rack!"
This leads me to believe the 2U model will be priced even lower. No mention is made, however, about clock speeds, although I'm, sure IBM will make nice fast ones avalible, a $3500 base configuration for the 4U probably means four-way 1GHz. Why would the fastest chips come in the base model?
All in all, however, these will be nice machines, and if you've ever wanted to escape the x86 world, PPC is a nice place to do it (speaking from experience). They are slightly ahead of Apple's current offerings, however IBM has the advantage there, the 970 being their own.
And if you want to run Mac OS X, you'll be disapointed.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Of that I have no doubt, IBM's reputation precedes them. I'm skeptical about their reasoning behind marketing Linux on ppc though. I think that's a flakey business move. There is a much more powerful OS available for that processor than Linux ppc. I think it's just a move based on the hype of the word Linux. I hate to make it sound so stupid but...
IBM already shoulders the enormous design costs of POWER4 for their high-end pSeries unix boxes. The tweaks necessary to make the PPC 970 for Apple have already been done at Apple's behest. It costs IBM very little additional R&D money to make low-end servers based on a chip they already design and manufacture for other reasons.
This makes PPC the only competitor to x86 in the commodity server space, except Sun, but Sun's product lineup grows more stale and outclassed by the day. Using IBM's compiler the 2GHz PPC970 performs approximately equivalently to a 2.8GHz p4 using icc, which is far beyond the performance offered by the in-order execution (!!) 1.05 GHz UltraSparc iii.
Having an alternative to x86 in the server space is desirable, because PPC will always have better heat dissipation and power consumption at a given level of performance. These are important considerations especially in the blade server market. In addition these are 64-bit boxes which will allow going beyond the 4GB memory barrier without using the "segmented memory" hack of the 36-bit memory addressed Xeons.
In short, this could work.
The Opteron competes against the Xeon, not the itanium.
That's what Intel wants you to think. Comparing the best Opteron systems versus the best Itanium2 systems in the SpecCPU database - Integer performance is roughly equal and for FP the Itanium2 is roughly twice the speed of the Opteron.
But, on a dollars per unit work basis, the Opteron stomps the Itanium2 for both integer and FP and that's the secret that Intel is working really hard to keep their Itanium2 customers from learning. Really, the only place Itanium2 beats opteron is watts expended per unit of work, the Itanium will put out more heat than any other chip available...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No, you only need special firmware on the card if you want the computer's firmware to be able to talk to the card. Modern OSes use the firmware for very little, or they don't use it at all. For example, on a PC, you can disable a hard drive in the BIOS, but Linux will still be able to access it (assuming it's not your boot drive). Linux accesses the drive controller directly; it doesn't use the BIOS.
So, you'll only need a special NIC if you want to netboot with that NIC. And you'll only need a special graphics card if you want to see the boot process on that card (you can use a serial console if you don't... at least these machies had better support serial console).
5: What about power consumption issues? Last I've seen the G5's, they gobbled power faster than an overclocked Athlon.
When did you last see a G5? A 1.8GHz PPC970 uses about 42W, while an Athlon XP 2500+ (1.833GHz) draws around 54W. I don't know how fast an overclocked Athlon would gobble power, but I'll note that the max power consumption of a non-overclocked Athlon 3200+ (2.2GHz) is 77W.
Oh right, because everyone knows that all ethernet cards are identical in terms of performance and quality.
I sure hope no one here has been taking any of your advice on enterprise servers seriously. Do you honestly believe that Fortune 500 companies pay for these hideously expensive service contracts with Dell et. al just for kicks? Hell, if they hired you they wouldn't need service contracts--a 24 hour Walmart could support the entire operation! Jesus, what are they thinking anyway?
But map in the entire database store into one process, a 32bit processor never will (unless your database is small, then multiway or 64 bit is useless anyway).
64bit math is actually not the draw of 64bits, it's all about the mapping capabilities.
TurboD
A computer is a tool, not a home, it's not a fashion statement. OS X gets this right. Trivial time-wasters like themes--while they may keep you from getting bored--really don't have much practical value.
/. stuff, volunteering to run some free community network centers/labs
That's bull. Mac OS X only helps "just getting work done" if you're functionally computer illiterate.
I'm a creative pro (supposedly Mac's main market) and yet I do all my photo processing (which is extensive) in Linux.
Why? Becuse it's about 100x faster in Linux due to the degree that I have been able to optimize my workflow:
1) Focus-follows-mouse, always shunned by non-Unix systems and now even by Unix systems (OS X, GNOME) saves endless point-and-click strokes (find titlebar, click to focus) when you have dozens of image windows open. Each one of these is a savings of several seconds. If you're performing hundreds or thousands of manipulations on a single task in multiple windows, that adds up to hours saved, not just minutes, on focus policy alone.
2) Fast cut/paste. Here again, the reviled behavior of X (highlight with left button, move to another window that focuses automatically, middle click where you want it to paste) saves incredible amounts of time versus the OS X or Windows behaviors (highlight with left button, hit CTRL-C, click on titlebar of destination window, click where you want to place cursor for paste, hit CTRL-V). The combination of focus-follows-mouse and keystroke-free copy/paste here again saves hours, not just minutes, when performing reptitious tasks.
3) Floating windows are my call. Once again I can keep GIMP tool windows, layer/channel dialogs, a kcalc, my conferencing window and others on top at my discretion, rather than always having to hunt down and raise some windows (by clicking on a taskbar or a dock) that I know I will need over and over again or being stuck with others on top that I don't want there and that just take up screen real estate. And when I am done with them, I can release them from forceed raise behavior.
4) Ability to turn of automatic raise when windows receive a click (done by combining focus follows mouse + titlebar-raise-only). I can have one window partially obscuring another and be working (inputting) in the "lower" (partially obscured) window while referring to one or more upper windows that partially obscure it. No need to "raise this one, look, raise that one, work, raise this one, look some more, raise that one, work some more, oh hell, just make a hardcopy, hmm, where shall we set the hardcopy..."
6) Scriptability/rapid application development. Yes, the dreaded command line shell. Many of my most intense post-production tasks (i.e. laying out posters with their captions, borders, copyright notices, anti-aliasing, interpolating to proper sizes, etc.) are database driven and processed through command line tools like ImageMagick. This allows me to do things like "makeposter 20x16 img_2525.crw" and in a single pass have the image automatically fetched from archive, converted from Canon raw, edited, captioned, matted, etc. according to a list of edits and captions I've saved ahead of time for images in my database, then sent to post-production (i.e. output). Don't tell me that there is a "makeposter" command in Mac OS X that will automatically query my database of images and perform these tasks for me, or that Apple will be willing to write me one.
[Perhaps AppleScript is capable of this stuff, perhaps not... I don't know AppleScript. But I will happily refuse to buy arguements that as well as my system works for me, I should switch to Mac OS X simply because AppleScript just "gets it right" or is "just more elegant" as scripting languages go. You'll have to give me real benefits, not techno-spiritual ones.]
7) The X-factor. I take pictures and I write prose. Those are the things I do for a living. I have other things that I do as hobbies (i.e. the
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Bingo! One of the more interesting aspects of 64-bit platforms is that they enable a programming model where a process maps all its files into its address space and lets the OS's VM system handle all the I/O. This can have huge advantages; for example, the OS can perform I/O directly into the process's memory and can even share that memory via the VM mappings when multiple processes open the same file. Simultaneous updates are much easier to handle than with explicit reads and writes, and it even becomes possible to embed synchronization data structures (e.g. mutexes) right in the file itself and use them efficiently. These sorts of things can already be done on 32-bit systems, but the 4GB address space creates a brick wall when you try to scale. 16 exabytes is a hell of a lot of address space, and although it's likely to be exceeded at some point, it is more than enough to handle any existing database.
Don't underestimate the power of a programming system where all data is accessed in the same way; it can both simplify code and remove the opportunity for bugs. If the operating system manages its VM intelligently, it can improve performance in many cases as well.
Come on moderator. Explain why I'm wrong instead of slapping me with a mod point
:>
...
i would guess that you are punished for talking about things you really don't know.
You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.
But you only need one nic and one card, and they will propably come bundled with the machine
2: SMP's nice. So is PPC. But how much will you actually save if you went to this versus a new 1 or 2 Athlon setup?
If you count the administrative costs i could buy not one but two 4way 970's, costing more than 8k, versus 4 beowulf athlons costing below 2k and still break even in a month. And i would have an identical machine for backup.
3...I can go to WalMart, or ripoff computer store and buy parts I need now... Not a good idea.
Go to walmart to buy parts for your server? Now that's a good idea
4: In my statement about Beowulf beating this, What's the cost/performance of 4 Athlon 1.5GHz with 1 gig of ram each (on 100MBps) versus one of these? I bet the name of "server" raises that cost atleast 1000$.
A 4way intel machine will cost far more though. More than $10K. These machines *will* be a huge success whether intel or not. You cannot address everything with beowulf you know...
Come on, a 4u 64bit under $5k? This is the dream of every fortran programmer i know, it is the perfect terminal server, the perfect development machine etc. Oh, and no one can come to you with a "why don't we use win2k3 here?" line.
What about power consumption issues?
huh? what about them? 970's need less power than most mobile chips. Where did you see that g5 "goble power faster than athlons"??? this is most definetely wrong.
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
I am a Linux user first and foremost... but the thing is, no matter HOW much time I put into customizing things, I can not make a Linux desktop as clean and easy to use as a Mac OS X desktop.
It's not just that having Only One Way To Do Things (tm) makes the easy desktop experience, but it's the fact that the One Way is thoroughly thought-out and streamlined. In Linux, we have tons of disparate pieces to put together in countless concatenations... but in the end, what we unavoidably get is an unstreamlined construct of disparate pieces.
I understand the appeal of customizing, and I do think Mac OS X could stand to allow a little more customizing without sacrificing the benefits of the OS. Linux will remain dominant on my PC desktop, and it will be dual-booted on my soon-to-be-purchased PowerBook, but the main reason I am getting the PowerBook is for Mac OS X and its ability to stay out of the way. The best OS is the one that interferes with my work the least. Mac OS X does that. Linux, when configured and tweaked to my liking and all that, does a good job by way of being stable and such, but some of those disparate pieces irritate. (Windows, of course, constantly interferes by being unstable and generally a source of irritation).
Ideally, I'd like to see Linux meet OS X halfway. Choice is good, but not when the choices are 15 different mediocre options. Can't we get 4 really good ones instead?
For the longest time I have been listing to the faint mumblings of the once so-called PowerPC Reference Platform.
/Dread
I for one, would be seriously interested in another platform besides Intel (wintel) where the hardware specs are as open as possible.
- Slower clocked RISC chips seem still to outperform the Intel line, although RISC perhaps is an outdated acronym.
- Couple this with a basically organically grown Intel MoBo based PC, with archaic Need To Have's like the floppy disk.
- Add to this a brilliant company (Apple) constantly being marginalized by having an 'incompatible' plaform.
(Apple does not want apple clones, but they sure would want to profit from the techno push the PC plaform gives to hardware)
It could end up in a faster evolving hardware platform, where software (think linux) and hardware (like Prep) evolve at the same speed (think Edsgar Dijkstra)
I, however, would not hold my breath.
No, it sounds Awesome.
Wrong. I don't know where you got this myth but it is, indeed, a myth. That's your point 3 as well - completely misguided and misinformed.
Then the Beowulf comments, now those are really clueless. Obviously you don't understand what a Beowulf cluster is. It's a protocol for building a distributed supercomputer using multiple linux boxes. You could make a Beowulf cluster with these, if you wanted to, but talking about the performance of a PPC970 versus that of a Beowulf cluster in general is simply nonsense. You're just horribly confused, or trolling.
The power consumption statement definately makes me lean towards trolling. That's marvelously clueless, totally reversing the actual relationships. The PPC lines run very cool compared to Intel and AMDs offerings, but you claim the opposite.
So yes, you definately deserve the modslapping, and another one as well. If you don't know something that's no shame, but if you don't have a clue and start spouting off whatever comes into your head pretending to be an expert, that is shameful indeed.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
well, you better believe it, as the article actually say:
...
"The ULE models, which will run Linux and IBM's AIX OS, will ship in 2U two-way and 4U four-way configurations. A base configuration of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said."
And it is actually believable as it also points out:
"IBM will stress better performance than Xeon-based servers, 32- and 64-bit compatibility with no migration costs or penalties, and linear price scaling from two-way to four-way systems."
This is a key feature of power4's design: the ability to have low cost multi processor systems (apple ships 1-way 1.8Ghz at $2.4K and 2-way 970s at $3k -- same configuration)
>Of course, if they ever DID come out with a 4-way
>PPC system for $3500, you'd better believe it would increase
>the hell out of how many people run Linux on PPC.
>I'd sure as heck buy one!!
tell me about it
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
I doubt this is connected at all with Apple's 970 offerings. IBM is already moving their AIX heritage to allegedly scaleable Linux, which is cool in concept (if unproven), and they are replacing their own Power architecture with PPC 970 - this is simply IBM staying in the UNIX server market - within their own strategic initiatives. A move I welcome, as it gives me at least a hope of a second non-Itanium based UNIX vendor 5-10 years from now.
They can pry my MIPS based Irix boxes from my cold, dead fingers - but someday I'll feel differently (when those boxes are really old and no longer supported). When that time comes, I'd prefer not to run Itanium (I still don't trust Intel for serious server work) and I'd prefer not to run Solaris/UltraSPARC - I trust Sun even less than I trust Intel - at least since they got all corporate.
What I REALLY hope, is that HP decides to offer HP-UX on either Itanium or PPC in the future - giving customers like me a choice not to use Itanium... HP has dealt with IBM before - and it worked (LVM is feature starved, but rock solid).
The desktop discussion (Apple or Amiga clones) is really non-sequitor - though it could be an interesting side-benefit of the new servers...
The 64bit offerings from AMD look more compelling to me: they give you comparable performance, cost less, and are fully backwards compatible with existing x86 software. You can already buy high-end dual-processor systems, and the desktop versions are going to be out later this year. If you are going to run Linux, they seem like a better choice.
I do wish that non-x86 platforms, like PPC, would become more widely used so that the Penguin's eggs aren't all in one basket, but realistically, I don't see it happening. Linux runs quite well on PPC, but some things just don't work: some compilers and JITs don't have a PPC backend, the AltiVec macros screw up some compilation, etc. But it's nice that IBM is trying; maybe if the get really aggressive on the pricing, they will make some inroads. $3500 for a 4x machine might do it, although AMD will do 4x as well at a reasonable price.
But it doesn't actually say that the base configuration comes with 4 cpus at this price. It's very common for IBM and others to offer a lower price configuration with empty cpu sockets for later upgrades.
32 bits gives you 4 GB of total address space. This is not enough to map a large database file alongside program and library code and variable space. So the program would have to swap different pieces of the file in and out of memory, in a non-transparent way. This is really no better than explicit read()/write(). 64 bits provides about 4 billion times as much memory space as 32 bits. Even if the machine does not have nearly this much physical RAM, the address space can be used by the VM to do file mapping and other fun stuff.
I work for a company that has IBM doing the support for our Netfinity and eServer server systems in the field.
In short, their support is atrocious. Their techs are awful and their parts have some of the worst build quality I've ever seen. The techs are constantly calling US about hardware issues. They come and go like crazy because IBM hires and fires them without a second thought.
Maybe the PPC970 hardware situation would be different. Maybe it's a different division. But I dunno if I'd count on it.
FYI.
+++ATH0
Sun and Wintel both have an advantage with blades. They may not be as fast as IBM's offerings but they cost only %15 as much. 100k for an AIX RS/6k despite the advantages is unacceptable to all but a selected few who are now cutting costs.
However these machines are not workstations but blade servers. If you want a fast risc powerpc workstation I would suggest the new Apple G5's. They have more software, 6.4 ghz internal bandwith, serial ATA, PCI-X 800 mhz bus, and other goodies. Not to mention you can run MS-Office, games, and other apps.
Linux on anything non intel really just includes OSS software. Not really worth it if your willing to spend big bucks.
http://saveie6.com/
According to http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003- 07-17#198
:
"We have demonstrated yesterday that Panther can support n processors, and really large amount of RAM.
Several different sources have confirmed the circulating rumor that we already had received in the past
Apple and IBM could be associated to developp and manufacture computer with n processors, where n could go til 64 G5! The project is internally named "Dark Star".
Each processor will have 4 memory slots, for a maximum allocated RAM of 16GB (when the 4 GB RAM modules). The 64 processors-based configuration will support up to 1 TB of RAM.
It will be possible to install in those computer many ATI graphic cards, and to use them in paralell, in order to allow a very high quality rendering.
Prototypes based on 8, 16, 32 and 64 processors are already working fine.
those machines will be available with an enclosure similar that to the G5' one.
The pre-production should start next month, but the availability should only be at the end of the year together with Panther Server.
Price will vary from 12 000 $ for the 8 CPUs version to 50 0000 $ for the top version including all the optionis.
Some people will probably consider this as a risky project. However, it seems that Apple and IBM could have already pre-sell some of those machines to prioritized clients, such as:
- Industrial Light and Magic
- Raytheon
- General Dynamics
- Genentech
- Amgen
- Pixar
- NASA
There are other names such as large american administrations."
I won't dispute that you're more productive running straight 'NIX rather than OS X; that's your call and your work environment. However, I've moved from x86 with Linux to MacOS X primarily because I need MS Office to exchange Excel spreadsheets with my CPA. She won't waste time fiddling with Open Office and she happens to be a great accountant. That's a straight home business decision.
At work I'm seeing a pretty fast transition from Linux to MacOS X among professors and professionals. They like the ease of use and access to commercial applications, combined with the traditional 'NIX toolbase, that OS X offers. Cheap desktops for students remain running Linux. This too, doesn't surprise me - Linux makes for a very cheap desktop solution when scaled up in large deployments. I expect to see our older Suns and DEC Alpha systems completely replaced with either PCs running Linux or Macs. I also expect to see us run a cost/compute comparison between the G5 and Opteron for clustering.
IMO Apple has successfully reinvigorated their software and hardware product line such that they are now producing very desirable products, and this is reflected in the purchasing decisions across my lab. Whatever you may think of the OS X UI I see a large number of highly qualified professionals and academics jumping to the platform primarily because they don't want to spend time learning hardcore 'NIX; they're too busy conducting research and writing papers.
So, what doesn't work for you seems to work well for them. Customizability is a tradeoff for sure, but these people transitioning to OS X are certainly not stupid or children; they are professionals who prefer to focus on their specialty rather than the near unlimited customizability of X (X Window System). A personal choice, in opposition to yours, which is equally valid.
Cheers,
--Maynard
The multitude of X86 cheap stuff doesnt work on these platforms. You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.
That's funny -- I just got back from CompUSA, where I paid all of $15 for a D-Link 100baseT NIC that will work with both Macs and PCs. The exact same trick works with most SCSI cards, several flavors of NVidia and ATI graphics cards, and Creative's Soundblaster line.
It's been many, many years since PCI cards for Macs cost substantially more than their PC counterparts. Like, almost a decade now.
And here's the thing: in many cases, those Mac cards will work unmodified in Linux-on-IBM/PPC servers and workstations. Also, occasionally, in Sun kit. Reason is, the "BIOS" in the PowerMacs, IBM's e-Servers and all of Sun's hardware is the same: OpenFirmware, AKA OpenBoot. Once you've set up your PCI card to support OpenBoot on one platform, it supports them all, and all the platform vendor has to do is write an OS-level driver for the card.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
4U means the physical size of the server. 4-way means that there can be as many as 4 CPUs in the box. It doesn't mean that there are 4 CPUs in each server. Base configuration means the bare minimum of equipment (cards, memory, HD) and software (Linux, AIX) that will ship with the box. Mostly likely the $3500 box will have 1 CPU as a starting point. Companies then can estimate the final box fully loaded.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Sometimes I despair of Slashdot. Here's IBM offering us a quad processor system at a price we can afford and we go off maundering about Mac OS X. This is not about Mac OS X. It's about a quad processor machine that you can afford to put under your desk. Isn't anyone else excited about that?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
No dude... you're wrong.
t n/tn1167.htm l#Section1
Here, this is from Apple:
"Hardware-specific code still exists in firmware (ROM) in order to handle the computer's start-up activities. This code fits into one ROM called the Boot ROM. The Boot ROM has the hardware-specific code and description of the hardware needed to start up the computer, as well as to boot an OS and provide common hardware access services the OS might require. One part of the Boot ROM contains Open Firmware. This Open Firmware implementation is significantly improved over versions of Open Firmware found on older PCI-based Macintosh computers. In particular, the device tree and Open Firmware drivers are much more complete."
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"