Slashdot Mirror
US Navy buys Apple as Linux Platform
Nine Mirrors Turning writes "According to the Register the US Navy has ordered 260 XServe servers running Yellow Dog Linux from Terra Soft Solutions. Terra Soft is the only reseller allowed to resell Apple hardware with a third-party operating system installed. The XServes will be modified by a unnamed third-party and will be running a custom kernel. The XServes are destined for US Navy submarines and will be used for real-time image processing. I do wonder how many will be installed on each sub, though. Are we talking clustering here? I didn't even know the USN was running Linux on front-line ships."
didn't even know the USN was running Linux on front-line ships.
Do you think that the rest of the world would fear the USA military so much if their front-line troops were running windows?
Now SCO's going to have to sue the Navy and Apple.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
From post: Are we talking clustering here?
From Article On board clusters of the Apple rack server will be used for real-time image processing.
Emphasis mine
I'm a Mac developer, so I have a love of the platform. But using XServes just to run Linux seems kind of strange at this time. The only systems Apple currently sells with decent performance with full exploitation of DDR are the recently released G5 towers. I would think that Apple would need to update the XServer line before such Linux use would make sense, since that OS currently runs better on Intel/AMD iron.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Finally the Penguin will submerge at sea... :)
Those who can, do. Those who can't, consult.
SCO: You owe us $699 per computer!
Navy: OK - how about we give you half a million and you keep the change?
SCO: GREAT!
Navy: OK, tell us the address to send it to.
SCO: <gives corporate address>
Navy: Tomahawk targeting confirmed - you have a go for launch.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Major price difference. A coworker of mine has a proposal under consideration, spec'd-out using either Apple or Sun hardware, and the Sun boxes are much more expensive.
"I didn't even know the USN was running Linux on front-line ships."
They probably looked at alternatives after Windows NT crashed from a division-by-zero error and left a navy ship dead on the water for several hours.
Another major difference between the two is the size; you can stack a lot more XServes than you can Sun machines of similar power (420R, 220R, not to mention the Enterprise 450, which is HUGE) given a fixed amount of space.
It is reasonable to assume that, since these are being put into submarines, space is of a limited quantity, so the reduced physical profile of the XServes may also have played a part in the decision making process.
/*- Mohammed -*/
when you think about it - some of the key advantages that Apple technologies have slot in perfectly with what customers like the Navy would want. The G4 and the rest of the PPC line work very well in specialised applications where vectorisation can take place (and when they're being used for one specific application, this optimisation can be done), and what's more they'll perform very well while putting out less heat and using up less power.
When you're on a sub that requires every inch of space to be utilised, these are attributes that make a computing system very attractive.
Once Apple deploys the G5s into these puppies, I think there's going to be a lot of organisations looking at their present hardware rigs in a very critical light.
-- james
Please check with a network time server. Your troll is off by about 4 years. HTH. YHBT. YHL. KTHX. BBYE.
/*- Mohammed -*/
There's a difference between graphics performance and image processing. Graphics performance refers to how fast the machine/OS can render images on-screen, while image processing generally means doing something mathematical to images from an external source. All that matters for the latter is pure, brute processing power and memory. OS X's fancy GUI is probably unneeded overhead - I doubt these machines will be attached to anything but power and a network.
This space intentionally left blank.
Why not use cheap intel hardware seems like a really strange question in this context. If memory serves, subs run in the 100s of billions of dollars a unit. And the nuclear ones stay down six months at a stretch. No Fed-ex delivery of replacement parts. You can't buy Dells with 28% return rates. "Uhm, Captin, the computer is down again. Can you tell the Admiral that we're going to have to take it off-line again while I trouleshoot." Don't think so.
The more interesting question is why Apple instead of Sun hardware. Given the XServes were supposedly originally designed to the NIH's specs, it may be that they're the most cost-effective answer to the problem.
And... completely off topic... can someone please tell Mr. Bush that outside of Texas it's nuclear, not nuke-u-leer.
the clock on the wall says 4 til 7
The only reason I can think of why they may not want to use an Intel solution, is that there won't be space on the subs for the air-conditioning they'd need. Still, they could put the racks in a freezer...
Maybe performance is an issue? Learn about AltiVec here.
No doubt the primary consideration here is operations/second, with operations/watt being a close second, and operations/volume being a near third. The G4 is the industry leader for the first two criteria, and the XServe is a COTS implementation with a low volume requirement.
Also, Apple gear is known for its quality/reliability and these things might be expected to run for 6 months without the possibility of service or replacement.
Plus, with the G5's announced, they can expect to double their performance in a year with a million dollar swapout but they can get started today. That's really frikkin' cheap for retrofitting a sub fleet. This probably can be seen as confirmation that the XServe is not going to have a formfactor change with the G5's (most likely on the 90nm process in Nov).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
(From the article)
The Navy wanted a custom Xserve chassis, and the work was organized by Terra Soft who employed a third-party to modify the hardware. Terra Soft provided a custom kernel and drivers for Fibre Channel storage.
So perhaps Apple weren't interested in making custom X-Serves, or hacking OS X to fit...
Whatever the custom hardware is (Fibre-Channel disk arrays by the sound of it) probably isn't supported by stock OS X.
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
The article says the deal includes 260 XServes and is "worth $1.9 million in hardware alone." Since these are being used for "High Performance Computing," presumably they are Cluster Node XServes, which are designed for exactly that. So why is the average price per system $1,900,000/260 = $7300, when the Cluster Node XServe goes for $2799 retail? Is the Navy getting a lot of extra hardware to go with this?
having worked on a few govt. programs using DSP and software radios - the G4 is the defacto standard used by folks.. but usually running VxWorks and using proprietary solutions like this one where the accepted use is to buy some dual or quad PPC single board computers.
.almost ALWYAS less than 500Mhz G4's. In fact, this 466 is a model i've never seen before. A project i worked on was using state of the art 300 Mhz G4's. Many of these solutions alos run near the $10k price range.
The problem is that in almost every case - like the one i referenced, these systems are still.. today..
In fairness, many of these SBCs are built to extreme timing tolerances, have insane backplane speed and often have RF gear built in... in the case of real-time processing. you _have_ to have this, and therefore, these costs are justified.
But a lot of the time, they simply wanted to use them for post-processing of data.. not real time.. so everything you made up in speed on these highly custom boards was useless...
i always wondered - silently - wtf is wrong with you people (engineers who come up with the "requirement" to run SBCs for post processing")? You can get 1U dual 1 GHz G4's to run the SAME SOFTWARE for 1/3 the price? Why won't you even concider it? ARRRGH!!!!
Well, it seems that there is some very very very very brave program manager in the Navy who stuck his/her neck out and proved what i always thought in silence... that this buying of slow G4-based SBC's to do DSP post processing was stupid and silly. The answer was to get some Xserves and do it two to 4 times as fast for 1/3 the money.
This is not so much a coup for TerraSoft - though, of course, they did the "hard work"... but let me tell you.. whoever the Navy PM was took a LOT of shit for their suggestion to use Macs. I guarantee you that.
I hope we'll be able to find out who that PM was.. i'd liek to talk to them and find out how they made the sell...
Apple computer is a BAD WORD in the Government.. and this was really a coup on the part of everyone involved... but don't think that its a novel idea or somehow "amazing". Using dozens of rack-mount G4 macs has been the elephant in the middle of the room solution to literally thousands of DoD problems for at least 5 years... its actually pretty pathetic and sad how long it took for it to make it to prime time.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Certainly it's cheaper to get the Xserve sans OS X. From the article -- "We're the only Apple reseller on the planet with a licence to install a non-Apple operating system," says Staats.
Regardless I always thought the whole Apple advantage was the way having hardware and OS under one roof allowed you to make great "gestaltic" solutions. Why pay the Xserve premium and get G4 powered rack hardware to install an OS that's available for cheaper, and argueably better supported, x86 hardware? (And I've been a Mac user for over a decade and even tried out YDL and LPPC a couple of times... this isn't flame bait.)
Still, either Yellow Dog must be doing *something* better than Red Hat is (maintenance price?) or they must be running something that was designed *explicitly for* AltiVec.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Actually some nuclear subs have had swimming pools.
. ht ml
7 /s eawolf10.html
The Typhoon (NATO name) nuclear missile submarine has a swimming pool in it.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/23/38544_
"...crew's rest area is like a club with lots of conveniences. There is a gym, a sauna, and even a pool there. We saw some submariners swimming there, having good time at work."
http://arms.host.sk/navy/941.htm
Modern American submarines all have air conditioning aboard.
http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%20pages/199
"In addition, we have conducted many trials on actual and smaller scale components and systems on the Large Scale Vehicle (Kokanee) and other test platforms, as well as the actual Seawolf, itself. Some of the many unclassified equipment items in which the Division played a large part include: - Air conditioning compressors"
http://www.usscod.org/fact.html
"Habitability is heavily stressed in the construction of modern submarines. Specially designed color schemes, mechanical conveniences, air conditioning, and the best chow in the Navy are supplied to make the vessels more livable. A full time staff is maintained by Electric Boat Division to work out 'human engineering' problems."
As you can imagine, there are a lot of details about this program that are not publicly releaseable, even if they aren't classified. You can find about more about ARCI via Google, but start with this PDF; it's mostly marketing pitch, but it does describe what we're doing.
I can offer some insights into the factors driving this particular decision:
You have to keep in mind the physical environment of a submarine: there isn't a lot of space on a boat for active equipment, much less spares. Redundancy is a must, as is reliability.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
WinNT did not fail. On a test platform, not an operational ship, running non-release versions of software: A client application accepted incorrect input. A server application accepted this bad data, performed a bad calculation, and corrupted it's database. Client apps that tried to use this database crashed. These events are OS independent, the same thing would have happened under MacOS X. The publisher of the article you cite later distanced themselves from the article calling it "early speculation".
h tml
The chief engineer on the ship at the time, and the developer of the application software, seem to say that the problem was not with WinNT:
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.
"Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred."
Keep in mind that the VIRGINIA class is designed without traditional periscopes. Instead high-definition cameras will take the place of the traditional optical periscope. So you can imagine why you'd want to be able to do some serious image manipulation.
Of course sonar systems would benefit from compute servers as well.