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
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.
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.
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.
I think it's clear from this just how much IBM fears SCO!
:-P
Belief is the currency of delusion.
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?
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.
...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;
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/
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.