Slashdot Mirror
Linux-only POWER5 server From IBM
vaporland writes "This story from Infoworld.com talks about IBM's new low priced POWER5 based servers which will ship with Red Hat or Suse Linux, but not IBM's AIX.
My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"
IBM wants your apps. They'll give you a free laptop bag if you develop an app for Linux on their Power platform. I think the most disturbing thing about this is the picture of Tux in a blue tux. He looks like he's ready to sing in a lounge somewhere.
But (somewhat) seriously, I could make room a four-way 64 bit Linux box on my desk. Chances are you've probably not seen my desk -- not an easy task.
Recipes for geeks -- no meatloaf, we promise.
No. Next question.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Something tells me that booting up OS X Server on an XServe is going to be cheaper than these babies.
My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"
No, because OSX does checks to look for Apple-specific hardware on boot.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Is there anything on the silicon they would prevent me from installing AIX on it?
With the supposed capacity to emulate 20 servers virtually, can these low/medium-end POWER5s actually perform adequately (comparably to the single-servers they are targeting)? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
It is commendable, however, that IBM is maintaining its Linux focus (at least on the servers). Now if they'd start pushing the desk/laptop a little harder...
I would be much more interested in IBM dropping prices on a Power5 desktop. It seems unlikely, but I would buy that thing in a second.
This is good news. Currently, there are few 64bit platforms where the hardware and software (Linux) are supported by the vendor. I wonder how well these will perform, and more importantly will IBM release a good compiler for them so that we can use them.
Will it boot OS/2?
When did IBM start using Redhat on the Power achitecture? It's been SuSE for a long time now hasn't it?
Here is the answer...
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/kernel26/
because most of the features important to Redhat has already been backported to their "2.4"
The thing is that Redhat isn't targetting the same market, as say Fedora or Suse.
That's why they created Fedora, otherwise all you guys would be bitching about redhat using 2.4 on your desktops.
They have their OS certified by many 3rd party makers of propriatory software, such as Oracle. Stuff like that takes a lot more work then just slapping 2.6 into a OS and making sure that everything works.
Everything has to work the way Oracle (for example) expects it to work, and Oracle is only going to tell Redhat the minimal it is needed to get it running, since it's closed source.
Don't worry, Redhat isn't dropping behind, it's just that they've adopted a much more long term-style revision policy compared to other distros. When they switch to 2.6 it will be a relatively cutting edge version of 2.6.
Which should be pretty soon. Also PPC developement is going to be falling a bit behind x86 developement due to the relative popularity of the different platforms.
Are you suggesting the fortune 500 companies spending thousands of dollars on RHEL 3* deployments should have either expected a kernel less then 6 months old in the intial RHEL 3 release? Or perhaps that their shiny new product certified to keep component version numbers stable for 5 years suddenly do a major version kernel upgrade 6 months into the product life cycle?
* RHEL 3 is the only Red Hat distribution you could be talking about. All other RHEL versions came out before kernel 2.6, and FC2 and FC3 do use kernel 2.6. FC1 won't get it because FC2 is halfway through it's own life cycle (which means FC1 is old & busted).
You're thinking of the old Mac Toolbox ROM from the Old World machines.
On New World machines, they check for Apple-specific entries in the Open Firmware device map. There's a whole device tree that won't be present on a non-Apple machine.
So, theoretically, if you could work up enough Forth to get the appropriate entries on a non-Apple machine, it should work....
Another trick is that OS X only works with USB keyboards and mice, not with PS/2 devices. IBM pSeries machines still have PS/2 inputs. And RS-232 serial. And IEEE 1284 parallel. And video cards OS X has never heard of. And....
Um, interesting, because those ROMs aren't present in .. any of my machines running OS X. Welcome to newworld. The only OSX-running machines which isn't newworld are the beige G3s, and they're not even supported any more.
Even OS 9 has supported having the ROM present in a file rather than physically present for ages.
Good thing the kernel's open source, then. There are things like XPostFacto which make OS X work on older Macs by providing the necessary drivers/etc and faking things as necessary, for instance.
too busy to read the TITLE? this is even lazier than me. RTFT.
No, because OSX does checks to look for Apple-specific hardware on boot.
Interestingly, if you boot OS X using Pear PC a message appears during verbose boot stating "Warning: Apple Mac I/O Self Test fails", but then continues to boot. It would seem that OS X knows it's not Mac hardware, but doesn't care.
like the internet, for instance...
the openpower 720, acording to the press so far, "starts" at $5000 for a 1.5 ghz model. that's one chip. no specs on ram or disk space or bus speed or whatnot.
by comparison, $4000 will get you an xserve with dual 2 ghz g5s and a gig of ram.
now, admittedly, that's a crappy set of comparison data... but for those who are willing to jump to a conclusion or two: apple wins on price/performance. big time.
2 1337 4 u!
Sorry for the AC post
PowerPC RISC architecture was developed by IBM in the late 80s / early 90s. Apple, IBM and Motorola formed a triumverate to further develop the architecture. IBM came into the deal with the 601 series processor already in development. When Somerset Park was shut down, Motorola inherited most of the physical assets, while all three companies retained ownership over the intellectual properties. The last processor series developed in concert between the three companies was the PowerPC G3.
Motorola and IBM diverged on development after the G3. Motorola was very interested in further developing vector processing, while IBM focused on better enhancing the core of the processor. Hence, then next iteration of the series from Motorola was known as the G4, while IBM went on to develop the Power 4, using similar underlying core architectures, though Motorola was stymied by clocking problems that didn't seem to be as much of an issue for the Power 4 processors.
The G5 processor that Apple is using now is actually a variant of the Power series from IBM that has included vector units. The Power 5 is also developed from the same core. Call them cousins if you will. So it would not be beyond the scope for someone to find a way to run Mac OS X Server to run on a Power 5 architecture. In fact, about the only thing stopping that development, I bet, is the threat of litigation from Apple.
It appears that POWER5 wipes the floor with UltraSPARC IV. An 8-core POWER5 system has better performance (according to this benchmark) than a 16-core USIV system in every benchmark in which they are compared.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"