Slashdot Mirror


Solaris Coming to IBM's Power Architecture?

johnm writes "Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's pony-tailed number two, dropped this little snippit in his blog where he talks extensively about what he thinks 'open' means: 'For example, as we continue porting Solaris onto IBM's Power architecture (demo coming soon!)...' Does this mean you'll soon be able to ditch OS X and stick on Solaris 10 onto Macs?" While coming off as an ad for Java, Schwartz also raises some valid points about Unix and migration.

4 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Power != PowerPC by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Informative

    POWER == PowerPC, but PowerPC != POWER

    POWER is a superset of PowerPC. See here.

  2. Forget Macs, P series! by telemonster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who cares about running Solaris on the Mac G5, look at IBM's efforts to convert Solaris/Sun shops over to AIX/RS6k shops! If you browse IBM's page looking at the pSeries servers (the Power series) you will notice ads about migrating from Solaris to AIX. This is a big inititive at IBM.



    From our standpoint, it's goes a bit like "ewww AIX" ... Solaris on the pSeries boxes would definitly be interesting. I believe IBM rebadges quite a bit of commoditiy hardware and marks the price up 900% (Older advanced 3d graphics cards for RS6000s were $30 s3 cards with different PCI identification tags and such)... so it might be easy to pick up support for quite a bit of the peripheral hardware from the Linux world.

    I'm not sure I'd shove it into a production environment, and what if IBM starts to throw curveballs into the works to thwart the people running Solaris. Still totally funny if you ask my opinion. Talk about a comeback to IBM's marketing strategy, but at what cost to Sun's hardware sales.

    --
    Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  3. Re:Again by dbirchall · · Score: 4, Informative

    WinNT wasn't so much "ported" to PPC as PPC was one of the architectures it originally supported. (Along with x86, of course, Alpha - the world's first 64-bit PC was in 1993, not 2003! - and, if my memory serves without looking at my NT4WKS CD, MIPS?)

  4. Re:Ditch OS X For Solaris? by mrm677 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Scalable to > 100 processors out-of-the-box. I don't need some tricked out kernel build from the folks building special 512-processor Linux machines.

    Compatibility with 64-bit apps written 10 years ago.

    A decent threading model that has been in place for years. Last time I checked there were 2 competing proposals for a new Linux threading system

    CC-NUMA memory allocation.

    Hot-swappable CPUs and consolidation. I can dynamically split single Solaris instance, running on 128 processors, to N instances each running on 128/N processors.

    Mature user/kernel profiling tools.

    Stable device driver model. Drivers from Solaris 2.6 will work fine in Solaris 10. Meanwhile any Linux kernel patch that changes task_struct will require rebuilds of certain Linux device drivers. Yes...not a problem with all open-source drivers, but the world isn't all open-source (ask nVidia)

    The kernel is more modular. I can swap in a different scheduler.

    Trusted Solaris is available if needed