Slashdot Mirror
Facebook VP Slams Intel's, AMD's Chip Performance Claims
narramissic writes "In an interview on stage at GigaOm's Structure conference in San Francisco on Thursday, Jonathan Heiliger, Facebook's VP of technical operations, told Om Malik that the latest generations of server processors from Intel and AMD don't deliver the performance gains that 'they're touting in the press.' 'And we're, literally in real time right now, trying to figure out why that is,' Heiliger said. He also had some harsh words for server makers: 'You guys don't get it,' Heiliger said. 'To build servers for companies like Facebook, and Amazon, and other people who are operating fairly homogeneous applications, the servers have to be cheap, and they have to be super power-efficient.' Heiliger added that Google has done a great job designing and building its own servers for this kind of use."
You guys don't get it
Is it possible to take out a massive life insurance policy on Jonathan Heiliger?
To build servers for companies like Facebook, and Amazon, and other people who are operating fairly homogeneous applications, the servers have to be cheap, and they have to be super power-efficient.
I assure you, despite your misconception that the world revolves around you everyone has those requirements. From the people who build supercomputers right down to the netbook I am typing on while watching Gurren Lagann.
Can we get like a panel of hardware engineers to have a discussion with this guy and can I get some popcorn?
My work here is dung.
1) Facebook & Amazon need cheap, power efficient systems
2) Intel and AMD aren't measuring up with processors to power these systems
3) However, Google has systems appropriate for this use (presumably using Intel or AMD processors)
If that's his argument, then it would seem that the real conclusion is that Facebook can't build systems as good as Google's, even though they are using the same processor technology.
Let's see... IBM, Sun, Fujitsu, Itanium (yeah, its still Intel, but has great performance)... All of these can offer equivalent or much better performance at these kinds of applications than what they're using. Don't bitch if you're not willing to consider the alternatives.
I agree I think this was writing his own resignation with this crap. The guy is basically telling everyone that he is incapable of finding an acceptable solution for his company and blaming intel and amd because he has committed a great deal of money on something that he didn't plan well enough to know exactly what the long term costs vs performance was. In the very article he says to not be cheap, but in many more words than necessary, probably to try to disguise what he is saying like most politicians, that they were not only too cheap, but made bad decisions on what to be cheap with. Its as if he's already in a public office, hes telling everyone he screwed up, why he screwed up, and trying to make it look like hes teaching everyone lesson to make his mistake to be less of a disaster.
Facebook is written in PHP; there are no compile flags.
apache and the php engine have plenty of compile flags. not to mention whatever the database is.
As someone who designs and deploys large storage environments for a living, I call BS. While the current generation of HBAs are 8Gb FibreChannel, I would say that the "average server" (as you put it) could happily live on a 1Gb HBA. Recall that almost all servers, or atleast those you care about, have DUAL HBA connections to their respective storage. So that's actually 2Gb of storage connectivity. Sure there are servers which have multiple HBAs, or use a higher utilization of the HBAs, such as database servers or backup/media servers. Most servers today are deployed with dual 4Gb HBAs as the 8Gb SFPs/optics are still quite pricey, and you cannot, in all seriousness, purchase 1 or 2Gb FC HBAs.
Even as we deploy VMware based servers, the VMware servers themselves tend to be more memory/cpu strapped than IO.
It would be very rare, or almost impossible for a server to be driving linerate HBAs, with still plenty of headroom left in the CPU. Even basic test tools like IOmeter require significant CPU usage to drive an HBA to capacity. And that is when it's writing/reading all zeros. It's doesn't actually need to do anything with the data. As would be the case if a database server was requesting 2Gb/s from a disk array, and then had to join/sort/add/whatever the tables retrieved.
Every major server vendor has jumped on the bandwagon of 'look how efficient we are, and 'cheap'. Three years ago, by and large the tier ones wouldn't bother designing systems without forcing even the cheap design to have parts included to facilitate purchase of redundant add-ons (i.e. power distribution cards designed for dual power supplies regardless of one being bought or not). They would always put a high end storage controller on the planar. They would always make their 'entry' platform be burdened with expensive components to make it easier to option it up.
Now, we have tons of 'internet scale', or 'cloud', or whatever buzzword you feel like. They tend to stress energy efficiency, low cost components, with sales and management strategies targeted at thousands of servers (i.e. IBM iDataplex, HP SL6000). Basically, precisely what he prescribes, though probably not as 'cheap' as he wants. The incentive he gives is that the vendors should have zero margin, which is not particularly compelling for companies to work toward. Google's situation works because they brought it in-house and thus have fewer middle-men. Honestly, from all the rumours I hear, it's the logical thing to do when your server consumption is larger than some respectable computer companies' entire production. If he thinks the volume of servers is high enough to pull a google, by all means do it. Otherwise, be prepared for people not jump at the chance to give their designs to him at zero margin.
Of course, if he is calling them out on performance per-watt by avoiding non-x86 solutions, including ARM, that might be a fair criticism. However, I think company forays into 'exotic' architectures have not panned out in the market recently. Sun's niagra, despite all the worthy praise, couldn't attract a mass-market required to subsidize it for those who benefited most from it. Last year, IBM seemed to be saying Cell architecture would light the world on fire, but have been a lot quieter about it now. The message their buisness leaders have probably taken in is that while these things have their target market, that market isn't worth the expense of developing products that are refused by the larger market and focus instead on leveraging commonly accepted building blocks to do as best they can for that niche, even if it means skipping the 'perfect' solution. Sure, IBM still sells plenty of POWER, but I haven't heard that be *particularly* praised on the performance/watt category like I hear a lot for Niagra, Cell, and ARM. And if not for POWER's legacy, it probably would be still born in the market today. The PA-RISC->Itanium decision for HP probably sank their HP-UX product line faster than banking on legacy of PA-RISC installs, and it seems IBM won't make that mistake, but at the same time I don't hear much about *new* POWER customers.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I think we read different articles. He's not saying he didn't plan well enough, he's saying that Intel and AMD promise that Gen Y processor is 35% faster than Gen X processor, and he's not seeing anywhere near 35% in real world performance.
If the application was purely CPU bound, and Y wasn't giving me 35% more than X, I'd complain.
However, if it's a complex system like almost everything else, why would they expect their application to get 35% faster when there's probably 6 or 8 critical subsystems that could all be bottlenecks as well?
More data, damnit!