Slashdot Mirror
Next G5 Multitasks Operating Systems
squiggleslash writes "IBM has big plans for the 970, Apple's so-called "G5". The CPU will support partitioning, similar to IBM's mainframe systems, allowing multiple operating systems to run at the same time on a single CPU. A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and the PowerPC version of Windows NT, all simultaneously and independently."
From the article:
The technology, called partitioning, relies on a concept called virtualization that breaks the hard link between an operating system and the underlying hardware.
Well, that's what VMware and QEMU already do, isn't it?
I'm assuming "partitioning" is some sort of architecture change to make schemes like these work better/more easily/more efficiently - but I don't think they should be pushing it as something new.
Unless it *is* something new and I've missed the point, that is.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
So what about the rest of the hardware ? Now you have two OS's accessing the same hard drive. There goes the IO ... unless you had two SCSI drives .. now it gets interesting.
Michael.
Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
2) IBM Sells off its intel based PC & Laptop line
3) IBM incorporates more features into the g5 to make it a bigger competitor to intel / amd
(begin conspiracy)
4) IBM pushes linux more heavily on the apple g5
5) IBM pushes the idea of apple desktops paired with IBM servers running linux or AIX
Could a stronger IBM / apple partnership be the culmination of technologies (power processors, apple desktops, IBM servers, the marketing engine of both companies) that finally steps up and pushes an all *nix platform to challenge Microsoft?
Yeah, I feel a burning need to run two Unices at the same time on the same machine. Maybe Ill have the GIMP running on X Windows in OS X and Ill have another GIMP under Red Hat. Just for the heck of it.
The next pasture is always greener
A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and the PowerPC version of Windows NT, all simultaneously and independently.
That sounds cool and all, but I don't multitask nearly as well as even the current G5. One OS running a few applications is about all I need most of the time. Until Apple (or someone else) starts selling extra terminals that can connect to my machine, I can't really share the machine with other people (aside from providing various services, or letting them log into a command line environment). And no matter what, I don't want a copy of any version of Windows running on even a sliver of my machine, thanks very much.
What would be much more interesting, for developers at least, would be to run multiple copies of the same operating system. I could run my app in one copy of the OS and debug it "remotely" from a second copy... two machine debugging in one machine!
one word: CONSOLIDATION
If you have 5 servers in a rack that are doing whatever they and only pushing an average 15% utilisation each, you can consolidate into a single physical box, partition it into 5 machines.
This saves you on:
* rack space
* power (electricity)
* cost (only have to buy 1 server, not 5)
That's for a server envirnoment. As Apple is traditionally targeted as a desktop, then it would allow you to do the same thing. How may people do you know who have 2 or 3 computers at home, connected with a KVM switch ? You'd be able to have a single box running all your different OS.
I hate to break it to you, but I don't see how that would work anyway, if you're talking about using GUI Java apps while in OSX. You wouldn't be able to have the Java apps interact with OSX, which is important for things like compositing the windows, getting input, writing to the same disk, etc. The best solution you could hope for would be an X- or VNC-type client/server thing, and I don't see how that could be a better solution than just interpreting the java in OSX anyway...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
will apple every allow it? hahaah.. maybe you can run osx & os9.. but you can bet they'll restrict it from running anything else..
You mean just like they restrict you from running Linux, BSD, and BeOS right now? Oh wait...
"But in reality, i believe this is so apple can release "big iron" type systems (servers), the VM would allow Multiple versions of the server OS to run for maximum uptime, protection etc..."
Personally, I don't think Apple has any importance to the decision. IBM is looking to beef up their powerPC chip. They want to migrate their mainframes and servers and even workstations to it. The more systems that use the processors, the more money they make that can be put into further developing the processor, etc.
This is just a case, IMHO, where IBM is adding features needed by its highend/mainframe systems so that they can be migrated to the Power5 line of processor and unify the IBM system lineup.
"unlike VMware which has a "host" operating system and then various Guests"
IBM came to give a demo at my former place of employ about two years ago with an Intel-based XServer and VMWare ESX, which ran directly on the hardware without a host OS. Really slick stuff - one of these monsters could run 30+ instances of Linux, Win2k Server, BSD, etc., great for us as 80% of our boxes averaged 1% CPU load and all our storage was on a SAN. I remember writing a proposal based on this to replace five racks of old machines with one 6U XServer.
"imagine what quality decisions you can make if you simply look for "systems that don't suck."
Well, the decisions may not be of higher quality, but the decision tree is that much more robust."
There's a system that doesn't suck?
News to me.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
(Much as I would like OS/400 to die completely, it's still quite popular...)
Yes. Let's throw away the most advanced operating system out there. Have you read up on OS/400? Every other operating system has been trying to play catch-up (unsucessfully) since it's release. Maybe it's not great for GUI lusers, but from a theoretical standpoint, it beats any form of UNIX, any mainframe, and any windoze system in the world.
Booo on you. OS X rocks for many reasons. I'm not saying it is better than Linux, but definately competes with it quite well, IMHO. Your comment that even windows is better is completely Bogus. In Os X everything just works. You don't have to worry about having to install drivers for things that should work without one (Something I have trouble on windows with ALL of the time), and the interface is just worlds ahead of Windows, and even kde, IMHO.
Not just mainframe systems support LPARING. We have 3 LPARS running on our big Power 5 570 server. It's a beefy server. Plenty of ram (106 GB split between LPARS) and 16 processors to divide between LPARS. When AIX 5.3 comes out, you can order a new feature code that adds fractional LPARING....that is you can create a LPAR with as little as 1/10th of a processor. It's not surprising that the next 970 has this built in it. The real competition for UNIX servers in the near future will both be powered by IBM chips. That is, Apple, and IBM. IBM better be careful in how much power they give the 970's because IBM could get a real run for it's money if Apple exploits this ability.
Gorkman