Slashdot Mirror


Job Ad Hints At Microsoft Move To ARM Servers

An anonymous reader passes along a brief EE Times note on a suggestive Microsoft job ad. ARM is explicitly mentioned, as are solid-state disk drives as an area of experimentation in the quest to reduce power consumption; but Intel does not get a mention. Here is the ad. "Microsoft is looking for senior software development engineer to help with its Bing data centers, potentially running them on ARM hardware, according to an EE Times article. Whoever gets the job 'can own the decision on the hardware that we use,' the job description said, and added that power management is a key aspect of the job. ... Microsoft was reportedly experimenting with the Intel Atom microprocessor in February 2009 with a view to creating a green low-power data center. One issue discussed then was the Atom microprocessor lacked performance compared with other Intel processors and that therefore any power saving might be negated by the need for more processors to carry a given computational load."

138 comments

  1. Product Experimentation by statusbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not necessarily dropping intel:

    To provide sufficient server and networking capacity, the Autopilot Hardware team is involved in Data Center planning, new hardware expirementation including SSD and ARM

    They are just doing expirementation (s.i.c.) !

    --jeffk++

    --
    ipv6 is my vpn
    1. Re:Product Experimentation by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whenever I hear about ARM and CPU Core's, I always get this unbelievable urge to dig up Total Annihilation.

      I know, I'm weird.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Product Experimentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and going with this tangent..
      try springrts.com for a full 3D multi-player remake of Total Annihilation-like games

    3. Re:Product Experimentation by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Continuing the off topic TA loving:

      The CA (Complete Annihillation) mod for Spring is excellent and well maintained.

    4. Re:Product Experimentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must... resist... urge...





      (Posting AC as I've modded in here)

  2. Netbooks! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

    It looks like MS is going to switch their Bing data centers over to power efficient netbooks using ARM processors and use SSD for storage. Wow ... running the Internet on netbooks. Now that's thinking different!

    1. Re:Netbooks! by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Not netbooks. If anything, it'll have to be an ARM single board computer, something like this. I have one of those; they're awesome in quite a few ways.

    2. Re:Netbooks! by will.perdikakis · · Score: 1

      The netbooks will have no flash support either, only Silverlight is allowed on the Mobile IE Browser. You can play WMA files using Windows Media Player and buy new songs through the Windows Media Player Store.

      Now, that is innovation.

      --
      -Will P.
    3. Re:Netbooks! by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're probably consolidating Bing down to a netbook to better serve the dozen or so people who use Bing.

      And most of them are related to Steve Ballmer.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Netbooks! by peragrin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Given the number of people who can actually use bing and find stuff that is actually relevant you can probably run the servers on a couple of netbooks.

      I randomly try to use bing to find stuff. I always get the wrong answer. I remember back when MSFT first switched windows live to bing you could search for Linux and get microsoft.com answers.

      It has gotten better than that. but not nearly as much as MSFT wants you to believe.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Netbooks! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always get the wrong answer.

      I'm surprised Bing isn't better. You'd think that MS would have put a little more effort into it. It's also ugly to look at.

      I wouldn't mind more competition to Google. While I like the free email and the configurable home page google offers, some really high-quality competitors would be healthy all around.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Netbooks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually four of these accounts are owned by Steve Ballmer himself:
      1. S.Ball (regular everyday personnal account)
      2. Ballman (pr0n account)
      3. MacLover (to be able to spy on Apple fanbois incognito)
      4. Chairmaster (to do research on types of chairs, kinds of woods and aerodynamics of four-legged seating apparatus)

    7. Re:Netbooks! by Entrope · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The OMAP3530 (which is in the IGEPv2) is a cool part in a lot of ways, but it would be boneheaded to put it in a data center. Because it doesn't have any high-speed interconnects -- gigabit Ethernet, PCI Express, RapidIO, or the like -- it isn't suited for most network-intensive applications. Marvell has a variety of systems-on-chips that do have ARM cores, running at higher speeds than the OMAP parts, and with high-speed interfaces on the chip. Other vendors probably have similar offerings; those are the ones that Microsoft would probably want to look at.

    8. Re:Netbooks! by dudpixel · · Score: 2, Informative

      they dont need to run the whole internet. Its Bing, not Google.

      (hint: joke)

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    9. Re:Netbooks! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      They're just going to buy thousands of SheevaPlugs!

    10. Re:Netbooks! by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Of course, the OMAP is more of a mobile kind of part. I wasn't suggesting that particular board. I've heard good things about Marvell's implementation of the ARM architecture.

      What I want to see are "performance" offerings with proper interconnects (especially Gigabit Ethernet and SATA) and multiple Cortex-A9 cores. That'd be great for all kinds of server applications, datacenter or home alike. The thing with Marvell's fast chips is that they seem to implement just the old ARMv5 instruction set, which is no fun. They also have ARMv7 versions, but those are for mobile applications mostly (e.g. single core).

    11. Re:Netbooks! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's the Detroit of search engines.

    12. Re:Netbooks! by jb.cancer · · Score: 1

      They're probably consolidating Bing down to a netbook to better serve the dozen or so people who use Bing.

      And most of them are related to Steve Ballmer.

      And most of them are Steve Ballmer.

    13. Re:Netbooks! by itjoblog · · Score: 1

      You really think they 'd be able to run the internet on netbooks? I 'd really like to see how this will run...

    14. Re:Netbooks! by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      that igep board looks very good - the guts of an n900 or pandora or similar for a very reasonable price!

    15. Re:Netbooks! by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      You forgot Stoolman, which serves double duty for kinky pr0n and three-legged, backless chair research.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    16. Re:Netbooks! by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      But... does it run Windows?

    17. Re:Netbooks! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I use Bing.

      When I'm buying something from eBay that's about $50 or more, and it's Buy It Now, that is.

      Bing Cashback FTW. That's the only reason to use it, IMO. (Although, I had a friend who used it back when it was called Live Search, because she didn't want to contribute to a Google monoculture. *facepalm*)

  3. I don't know.. by ignavus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know about "owning the decision on the hardware we use", but I'd like to "own the decision on the software they use".

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
    1. Re:I don't know.. by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder how true that quote actually is. I mean, what if you decide to run OSX Server, or order a shitload of iPads... or start buying Sparc boxen (they still make those, yanno...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:I don't know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laugh at the thought that they're probably stubborn and backwards enough to run a Windows based cluster.
      Then again, they don't have to pay licensing costs, so I guess they can at least ignore one of the disadvantages.
      Now the question is, are they going to port Windows Server to ARM, or will they be running Windows Mobile?

    3. Re:I don't know.. by Bungie · · Score: 1

      Windows Mobile is enough of a headache on mobile devices, I don't even want to think of it running as a server. I think to handle something like Bing, they'll need Windows Server. If they've kept true to NT's platform independant designs they should be able to port it easily enough.

      --
      The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
    4. Re:I don't know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You laugh but I have it on good inside info that most if not all of MS's big SQL installations are Oracle on Sparc/Solaris. Have a friend at Sun who worked on it. So when they have a need for power and stability, they do not choose MSSQL.

    5. Re:I don't know.. by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      If you can make Mac servers running OS X beat their existing intel servers on price, performance, and power consumption (presumably the goal of the whole experiment) I think they would be extremely interested.

    6. Re:I don't know.. by iowannaski · · Score: 1

      It's a trap. The successful applicant may "own" the decision, but that doesn't mean he will make it - it just means he will be responsible for dealing with any repercussions.

      --
      i forget
    7. Re:I don't know.. by edmudama · · Score: 1

      Um, Mac servers running OS X are already Intel servers. Apple has been shipping Nehalem XServe boxes for over a year.

      --
      More data, damnit!
    8. Re:I don't know.. by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      I realize that, but it still only legally runs on Apple hardware. So the price/performance/power of the new xserve's would have to beat their existing Intel boxes ( wherever they get them from) to make it worthwhile, or even interesting. It's one thing to beat them at specific workloads with something fairly exotic (like ARM, or IBM Power chips), if you can beat them on more or less identical architectures even with Apple's significant price premium, especially when they would have to pay for OS X server and they get Windows and Linux/BSD for free, it would mean somewhere in their current system is huge inefficiency. If you can show them what that is, that all their engineers have missed, I'm sure they would hire you in a heartbeat. I just did a quick comparison, a new Xserve configured the way I would configure it for a web server, compared to an almost identical dell server, the price difference was a little over $3,000.

    9. Re:I don't know.. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Writing something like this as AC destroys all credibility, especially since it's 2nd hand.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Does this mean that they have an internal build of NT on ARM, or is the world going to be graced with "Windows CE Datacenter Enterprise Edition" at some point?

    1. Re:So... by will.perdikakis · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hope the reset button on the datacenter does not require a fine tip point to reach. :p

      --
      -Will P.
    2. Re:So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It does; but one of their mechanical engineers came to a rather brilliant realization:

      A WinCE PDA is almost exactly the same size as a data tape. With modest modifications(consisting largely of forcing the work experience kid to run lots and lots of docking cables) an industry standard tape silo can be turned into a gigantic WinCE/ARM blade farm. If a node stops responding, the robot retrieval arm pops it out, presses the reset button, and pops it back in again. Since the OS is in ROM, boot is short and downtime is minimal.

    3. Re:So... by cbdougla · · Score: 1

      I can't decide whether to mod this insightful or funny.

      Oh well. I guess I'll post instead.

    4. Re:So... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NT was written as a portable OS from grounds up (remember that it had a working MIPS build before x86 build!), and much of that legacy still remains today in OS architectural design, so porting the OS itself shouldn't be hard. The toolchain (compiler etc) is already there to target ARM for CE.

      Drivers (third-party ones specifically) might be trickier, though they're still mostly written in C, so for the most part it should be a straightforward recompile.

    5. Re:So... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      I doubt they ever stopped keeping back room ports of NT for Alpha and Mips.. Kind of like how apple always kept a back room, "secret" port of OSX for intel. Sure, the apps won't run, but in a datacenter, you can pick the exact apps you need, and recompile.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    6. Re:So... by mirix · · Score: 1

      Never knew they had a MIPS port, I thought the first one was for alpha?

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    7. Re:So... by washu_k · · Score: 1

      The first NT port was actually for the i860.

    8. Re:So... by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      i860/MIPS/Alpha/PPC/x86/x64/IA64 are the platforms that are known to have been supported by NT over the generations.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Better to question whether you are clever enough to moderate, than to post and remove all doubt.

    10. Re:So... by EXMSFT · · Score: 1

      They did stop keeping them.

      Dear lord, I can't imagine having to ensure builds would still compile for all of the dead architectures.

    11. Re:So... by scottgfx · · Score: 1

      In the pre second coming of Steve Jobs era, there was a secret project called Star Trek at Apple. It was a port of the "classic" MacOS for Intel.

      Surprised it hasn't turned up in a Redwood City bar.

      --
      It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
    12. Re:So... by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      They had a MIPS port before Alpha, it's the reason why Alpha ARCSBIOS had MIPS style device names.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    13. Re:So... by fwarren · · Score: 1

      I would just LOVE to see them port Windows CE. Since the thing does not even have the concept of a "current" directory. That is NOT server class software.

      Since they will have to write something to run on ARM, might I suggest they take the time to create their own SSH server so it will be possible to administer one of these things like a real computer? This comment is not meant as flame bait. I take care of both Windows and Linux servers remotely. If you have to do it graphically, nonmachine is as fast as RDP so you are not stuck with VNCs performance issues. But when there are bandwidth issues, ssh is much faster than RDP for administrative tasks.

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
  5. ARM Processors by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

    So does this mean Windows will be ported to ARM soon, or will Bing be running on Linux?

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    1. Re:ARM Processors by Evil_Ether · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or they could cluster the ARMs under Linux and then run Windoze on a VM.

      --
      If taxation is legalized theft, then Capitalism is a prolonged rape followed by a slow death.
    2. Re:ARM Processors by ushering05401 · · Score: 3, Funny

      BSD more likely.

    3. Re:ARM Processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or maybe just port some embedded version of Windows (e.g., windows CE) to ARM, port IIS+whatever else required, and go.

    4. Re:ARM Processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ARM = Automated Resource Management

    5. Re:ARM Processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue Screen (of) Death?

  6. And what OS? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    And what OS? Windows CE or Linux?

    Or is a version of Windows on ARM in progress already?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  7. Re:Netbooks... Don't be fooled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fool me once, blame me, fool me twice... er...

    ARM + SSD + low power + Apple selling like hot pancakes + Apple fearing Google's Android implies:

    Secret M$ mobile project... a Zunephone or a Zunepad or something...

  8. also a good way to hide news of porting Windows by Locutus · · Score: 1

    it could be just about ARM based HDD controllers but then again, it could be their way to fund and develop Windows for the ARM tablet and netbook segments. ARM based tablets and netbooks are due to hit the market in bucketfuls this fall and with talk of Google doing an Android based tablet, Microsoft has to be ontop of this. Monkey Boy Ballmer is probably throwing chairs around yelling about how ARM devices( iPhone and Android ) are already making Microsoft a laughing stock of the mobile market.

    So is it just about saving money/energy for MS BING servers or is it about getting Windows ported to ARM?

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    1. Re:also a good way to hide news of porting Windows by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      Want to run Flash on an iPad? Buy Microsoft iWindows 7!!

      Not going to find that one at the app store.

  9. Maybe not for the server hardware itself by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ARM is severely underpowered, even when comparing to Atom. So it doesn't make *any* sense that MS is considering it as a server platform.

    However, ARM excels at low power consumption and mobility. This would allow a new array of "server helper" devices that had needed quick handling of light tasks. Maybe something like packet routing or on the fly network topology auto-configuration. Another concept could be mobile cache points which would be somehow networked to the main servers and provide "smart caching" of data for light user requests.

    Who knows. But to think that ARM is going to somehow best Intel's chips in the server market is crazy.

    1. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The important metric is MIPS/Watt. It doesn't matter if the CPU is "underpowered" if you can run a bunch of them in parallel to get the same performance as a Xeon, and still get better power consumption. Remember, the work they're doing is highly parallelizable, so outright clockspeed isn't very important.

      However, I don't have any MIPS/Watt figures available for ARMs or Xeons, so this is idle speculation. If I were to take a guess, however, I'd guess that, given a real-world workload, the Xeons would probably beat the ARMs because of many factors: cache size, context-switching time, etc. If it were more economical to run a datacenter on tons of low-power ARMs, Google probably would have already done it by now.

      As for craziness, remember, this is Microsoft we're talking about: the company that thought SongSmith would actually be a commercial success instead of a complete joke. Given their combination of big successes and utter failures, they seem to be quite neurotic.

    2. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that, for the ARM designs, the real killer would be the glue logic/connectivity required.

      Even if the ARM cores were more efficient, in terms of work done per unit power consumption, you'd still get less work per core, which means more cores, which means more network gear(whether it be network gear in the classic "1U, 48ports, ethernet" sense or whether it would be some custom thing(dozens of cores per card, with glue logic, some sort of cardcage/blade design, whatever) the interconnect silicon and cabling costs money, consumes energy, takes time to set up/administer and constitutes another point of failure.

      If the ARM cluster equivalent in power to your basic boring 1-2 socket x86 requires 24 or 48 switch ports, any power and initial cost savings are going to be eaten fast.

    3. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by vwjeff · · Score: 1

      ARM would be a great platform to run a search engine's web spider. The spider box itself doesn't do much processing. It would go out and determine of a page exists or if a page has been updated. The spider would then tell another more powerful system to analyze the contents of the page. The ARM boxes could be powered on and off as needed. I don't think Microsoft would run an entire data center on ARM. I'm guessing they are looking at ARM for an extremely specialized task in their data centers.

    4. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by Skapare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Back when I was building a Linux distro for an ARM platform (specifically IXP435) I found it to have maybe about 1/3 of the power of x86 CPUs of the time, but running so cool that the CPU didn't need a heat sink and didn't get so hot I couldn't put my thumb on the CPU. And that was after running a regression test suite for 20 hours. ARM definitely is a win for the MIPS/Watt metric.

      BTW, it would be scientifically simpler to just refer to this metric as "millions of instructions executed per joule of energy converted to heat" (would roughly equates to a gain of information in exchange for a loss of information).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    5. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get ARM blades with many chips on one blade already. This is not each little machine with its own network interface, the overhead would be massive.

    6. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nehalem is about 800 DMIPS/Watt (75500/95W), Cortex A9 is about 8,000 (4000/.5W). The Nehalem figure is based on Sandra results for the Core i7 870 link, Cortex is based on ARM's numbers for their power efficient model link

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so sure about ARM being out of the game for doing the heavy lifting. One of our class talks was from someone who was part of a research team examining the issues that need to be addressed to get us to exaflop scale supercomputers and beyond. Power requirements are absolutely key, and ARM processors -- evolved, of course -- may end up being the way. I know there's at least one team putting together an ARM-based cluster, and frankly I think they're on to something. (Our prof said they're hiring, and I might ask for more info.)

    8. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by ravyne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, current ARM processors are more than competitive with Intel's low-power offerings -- Arm Coretex A-8 cores have been benchmarked to match or exceed the performance of Intel Atom processors in integer performance while suffering a 25% clockspeed disadvantage, and while consuming around 1/20th the power. Floating point performance does indeed lag behind even Intel's Atom (its also one of the focus areas for the Cortex A-9 core), but is not a big requirement for server or database tasks.

      There was some intersting reseach not too long ago which paired low-power x86 chips (Geode LX at the time, IIRC), Solid-state storage (in the form of compact flash) and a RAM-based caching of solid-state contents. About 10 of these boards were then clustered, running a distributed database application. As I recall, there were some serious performance and power-savings advantages compared to a single larger, multi-core x86 server setup. The primary advantage, in my oppinion, was that the ammount of available bandwidth, both to storage and to working RAM, combined with intelligent caching, was paired in much more favorable ratios to the power of the CPU. In short, the reseach found that a cluster of modest machines turns out to be competitive, even better-than, a single powerful server in terms of cost, power-consumption, heat disipation, and even in performance.

      Microsoft is keen to realize that a modern ARM core is quite well suited to match modern I/O limitations. There's no point building a large system when the requests it's going to serve will be bottlenecked by I/O.

    9. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by martas · · Score: 1

      i've seen such figures comparing CPU efficiency (though can't find them now). unsurprisingly, the distribution looks like a bell curve, with the mid-range CPU's having best overall power efficiency.

    10. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Wolverine will be thrilled to hear that.

    11. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Underpowered in which way? I'd expect ARM not to have the floating-point horsepower of Intel low-power CPUs, but this is datacenter, not HPC vector computation. I don't know enough about Atom et al to compare the rest of the feature set.

    12. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      ARM Core + FPGA Logic = much faster than x86/x64 + much more power efficient + just as easy to develop for once your "library" of FPGA APIs is developed.
      Microsoft Research has been looking at FPGAs in the datacenter for a long, long time.

    13. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by adolf · · Score: 1

      Your argument doesn't make sense. It seems to go something like this: "Because the ARM chip never did get very hot, compared to some other chip, it must be a better performer in terms of MIPS/Watt."

    14. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by M8e · · Score: 1

      It does actually make sense. If the two cpus have the same surface area(=same heatsink) you can compare their wattage by measuring the temperature.

      CPU A have X mips, use 20W and gets 10c above room temperature.
      CPU B Have 2X mips and gets 30c above room temperature with the same cooling.

      With one have better mips/watt?

    15. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really interested in looking at these. Can you provide a pointer?

    16. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Floating point performance does indeed lag behind even Intel's Atom (its also one of the focus areas for the Cortex A-9 core), but is not a big requirement for server or database tasks.

      Atom suffers inefficiency for x86 compatibility, but it's definitely the lowest-power way to get SSE3 and it is fairly respectable at multimedia tasks as a result. It's basically a Pentium M, which was the most efficient x86 chip of its day, too.

      There was some intersting reseach not too long ago which paired low-power x86 chips (Geode LX at the time, IIRC), Solid-state storage (in the form of compact flash) and a RAM-based caching of solid-state contents. About 10 of these boards were then clustered, running a distributed database application.

      The problem (as alluded to elsewhere) is that you need totally custom hardware or a bunch of glue hardware to replace a single x86 blade server with a whole box of blades to do the same amount of work, and for what, power savings? We're only starting to run up against limitations there, so far, it only makes things more expensive. So you have to compete with the price of power, and so far it's not favorable.

      Microsoft is keen to realize that a modern ARM core is quite well suited to match modern I/O limitations. There's no point building a large system when the requests it's going to serve will be bottlenecked by I/O.

      That's why cloud computing is so interesting, it's a way to utilize all that idle time from your overpowered servers. One way I could see using arm to increase transactions is to make hybrid ARM/x86 nodes. The ARM part processes database transactions until it can't handle the load any more, then the x86 part comes up in the background and takes over processing. But then the ARM part has to sit idle, so unless you can use it as some kind of coprocessor in the x86 system, you've still got wasted silicon sitting around, just [far] less of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that Atom is an in-order processor like the original Pentium, and completely unlike the Pentium M. Or has Intel changed the architecture in newer Atom models?

    18. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Atom is an in-order processor like the original Pentium, and completely unlike the Pentium M. Or has Intel changed the architecture in newer Atom models?

      You're right that it's in-order, but it's also hyperthreading (newer ones, single core or not.) The OS is therefore in charge of keeping the two pipelines filled. The mind reels. Wikipedia says it's half as fast as a Pentium M, but the Pentium M didn't have all the features of the Atom, either. Wiki also says Atom is descended from Stealey, which is in turn based on Pentium M... so, yes, Atom is based on Pentium M.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Maybe not for the server hardware itself by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Your comment makes me wonder: what, nowadays, is the real hardware bottleneck when it comes to servers?

      I can imagine e.g. an SQL database server or a web server doing lots of dynamic pages needs quite some CPU horsepower and internal memory. Some multi-core Intel would be useful.

      On the other hand a file server needs storage and lots of I/O bandwidth - no need for a very powerful CPU. ARM may be in place here as having enough power to keep up.

      The same would account for a web server handling mainly static pages, I would also expect I/O bandwidth to be the core issue there.

  10. Have to note as a big 'duh' by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One issue discussed then was the Atom microprocessor lacked performance compared with other Intel processors

    Atom and ARM are great platforms when you don't need much processor in one spot. I.e. many embedded applications and a lot of consumer electronics. They need some processor, but not a lot. 'desktop/server' processors are optimized for a higher load and just don't scale down. Note that ARM isn't inherently low power, it's just the instruction set everyone in the world has rights to implement, and Intel pretty well dominated everything but an emerging low power market. You have a lot of innovation and skill at implementing 'just-enough' processors that simply picks ARM out of convenience.

    In the data center context, things change. The notorious energy consumption of the low-power processors come to nothing when you can arbitrarily consolidate workload onto as few processors as possible. The economies of scale of the mainstream desktop/server platforms deliver are far greater than tiny low power devices.

    In terms of MS experimenting with it, expect nothing to come of it. It will fail like Atom did in their experiment before. Assuming a long shot, expect nothing to change externally, even if MS discovers ARM is great for their data centers, they cannot readily win a market that centers around lower cost, lower energy, lower performance non-x86 compatible parts. They have a golden example of a company thinking their technology intrinsically drives the industry making a drastic change to discover they were wrong. Intel thought they dictated the terms of the industry, but Itanium simply failed to transform the market without quality x86 compatibility. This was the golden opportunity for AMD to swoop in with an alternative and make huge gains. MS is in the exact same situation, 99.9% of their clout is the environment of existing Windows apps. Microsoft has tried time after time various platforms to reach the same endgame of no success. If the new architecture in *theory* provided more performance, sufficient to emulate x86 instructions, then it would stand a remote chance, but going to lower performance platform renders this impossible. In a really long shot, MS gets a lot of really nice ARM hardware on the market, and then has to compete with Linux on its own merits rather than ecosystem of applications. It's nearly suicide to risk your largest leverage point unless the industry is imminently making you irrelevant even if you stick to your guns.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      We found this when testing our point of sale app. So long as the POS software was running only the POS software on the terminal with the DB hosting on another machine/server, it was great. But as soon as you coupled POS + DB on the same terminal, lag started to be noticed. It was still acceptable, but it would take 3 seconds to create a new ticket vs. less than a second on a 2.8Ghz P4. Especially on the single core Atoms. The Dual Core atoms seemed to handle things just as well as their 2.8Ghz & 3Ghz power hungry Pentium they were to be replacing. And we tested both Windows XP/WEPOS & Linux (openSuSE/Ubuntu) and saw the same results.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    2. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Put simply: which would you rather have servicing millions of small, distributed requests?

      a) thousands of 2.8GHz multicore Intel platforms using large amounts of electricity and heat
      b) tens of thousands of 800MHz multicore ARM systems using much less than 1/10th the power of the Intel platform, producing significantly less heat?

      The answer - to me - is pretty clear. The bottleneck to implementation is the software.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      This is something I've been thinking about lately. Obviously, good design dictates that we use a separate app and db server for performance reasons (as it is usually more responsive). However, what about separate purposes (app server, db server), each running in its own VM on the same host? It's something I'm hoping to implement at a not-too-distant time to test.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer - to me - is pretty clear. The bottleneck to implementation is the software.

      I'd rather have whichever one is more cost-effective, and I sincerely doubt it's going to be the ARM solution.

      I'd like to see some evidence that an ARM CPU provides two orders of magnitude better processing power/watt than a Xeon CPU.

      Then you might want to consider how much power consumption the order of magnitude greater supporting electronics (motherboards, RAM, switches, etc) is going to add to the ARM solution.

      *Then* you might want to consider the cost of people to handle the additional administrative overhead in managing and order of magnitude more machines, and the additional physical space required.

    5. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      and Intel pretty well dominated everything but an emerging low power market.

      I know what day it is, so are you high?
      ARM cpus are sold by the container ship full, these things are in everything from coffee makers to cellphones. Intel dominates x86, in the embedded world they are just starting to get a userbase.

    6. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why would there be more machines?
      You just have more CPUs per machine.

    7. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by Junta · · Score: 1

      As I said everything *but* an emerging low power market. ARM is the place where they don't have a hold.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The low power market is not emerging and they do not have a place in several other markets. They own x86 that is all. Embedded is a market far bigger than PCs and servers.

    9. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, the numbers are straight from thin air. You think by adding 10 times as many servers (btw, those servers have all sorts of individual inefficiencies and energy overhead to significantly offset any gains on the actual processor) you can deliver the exact same throughput, but there is a lack of real data.

      Also, if you do want to get adventurous, then look at non-intel high-end chips like POWER, and re-examine the performance per watt between that and the various ARM vendors. Intel may get to largely skip energy efficiency innovation to a large degree, but at the top end, there are vendors still making remarkable technology that is probably also doomed in the datacenter eventually.

    10. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      atom doesnt have hypertransport/qpi idiot.

    11. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you didn't want to run them on the same machine for performance reasons before, virtualization will only exacerbate the problem. Virtualization does not speed up anything, it does not magically make multitasking better (in fact, worse). Virtualization can be used for some security separation without having to think at all about it (I would prefer people do the thinking to make it ok to coexist in the same OS instance, the VM thinking just leads to effectively static linked binaries for everything, but practically speaking, people are lazy) or for running disparate OS apps (i.e. Windows and Linux) concurrently with reduced hardware.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    12. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by Junta · · Score: 1

      Fine 'emerging' might have paid a disservice to the rest of embedded, but you have to admit embedded sensibilities are meeting more front-and-center consumer interaction with more general purpose set-top boxes and cell phones going around. Sure, special purpose embedded well behind the scenes has been larger volumes, but the more general purpose in a single device aspect is changing the landscape of embedded.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    13. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by Bengie · · Score: 1

      One thing others haven't pointed out yet is there are many other *fixed* power consumers. Like NICs, switches, motherboards in general.

      Even with a CPU that is 1/40th the speed, but 1/100th the power is you still have to use 40 times more computers, which also means 40 times more network ports.

      You also have to remember a mostly fixed amount of overhead from the DB/OS standpoint. It might only be 1/40th the speed, but you may take a relative performance hit from XXX amount of mips just to calculate indexes and requests/etc.

    14. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by afidel · · Score: 1

      By units, revenue, gross profit, or net profit? Because I'm pretty sure Intel is the biggest in all those categories except units shipped.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    15. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by noidentity · · Score: 1

      So long as the POS software was running only the POS software on the terminal with the DB hosting on another machine/server, it was great. But as soon as you coupled POS + DB on the same terminal, lag started to be noticed. It was still acceptable, but it would take 3 seconds to create a new ticket vs. less than a second on a 2.8Ghz P4.

      That's why they call it POS software.

    16. Re:Have to note as a big 'duh' by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      However, the ARMs are much smaller physically, and you could probably get a 16-core Cortex-A9 MPCore setup in the same space as a quad-core (or maybe even dual-core) x86 CPU.

  11. ARM != ARM CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This probably means Automated Resource Management. I can't belien

  12. Nobody here remember RAQ2? or Acorn? by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

    RISC can do a surprisingly heavy lift, pound for pound...

    My old RAQ2 didn't even have heatsinks on the CPU...

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:Nobody here remember RAQ2? or Acorn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh gawd, the Cobalt RAQ2
      The failure rate on the RAQ3 was one bad in every box of 5
      I made fun of the hardware to one of their sales reps and they gave me the shrug of I agree

    2. Re:Nobody here remember RAQ2? or Acorn? by supssa · · Score: 0

      Yea I remember RAQ2, probably the worst iteration of the R5000 cpu. My R5000s all had heatsinks, they were also almost 10 years before the underpowered RAQ2. RAQ2 was great if you had a hobbiest webserver, but those of us actually crunching data were much better suited with UltraSPARC or x86....

      --
      Hatin' on products I don't like and getting modded up talking about tech I totally don't understand like it was 2005!
    3. Re:Nobody here remember RAQ2? or Acorn? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My old RAQ2 didn't even have heatsinks on the CPU...

      How amusing that Cobalt went to the K6 because they couldn't keep going forward with MIPS. Further, how amusing that K6 and Pentium are both internally-RISCy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. "Edge" systems? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's a thought...most pure data retrieval tasks don't require a huge amount of compute power on the device making the request. If I were operating a datacenter with thousands of hits a second, I'd want to optimize for the ability to hold a session open, then offload the request to either a monster data layer or a midrange layer that brokers requests and caches frequent search results.

    Something like a single-board computer (or a really scaled-up thin client :-) ) running a low-power processor dedicated to driving network interfaces that also have their own offloading processors would allow them to scale the access layer way up for less power costs. Reliability would be less of a concern too, because you could have tons of cheap devices for the same costs as a fraction of full servers.

    When you scale out, you often don't need the overhead that full servers would give you, because you're limiting the tasks that layer of access has to do.

    Or...they just want to see how many smartphones it would take to replace layer one of Bing. :-)

    I'm waiting for the announcement of Windows Embedded CE 2011 Datacenter Edition.

    1. Re:"Edge" systems? by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      most pure data retrieval tasks don't require a huge amount of compute power
      It's not about data retrieval. Inverted index searches are not IO intensive, they're CPU/RAM intensive, period. Our (tongue-in-cheek) tests using SSDs did not yield significant performance gains.

  14. "own the decision" by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MBA-ese for "take the blame"?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:"own the decision" by Cjstone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah. "If this goes well, you'll be a hero. If it doesn't, it's your fault and you'll never work in the industry again."

    2. Re:"own the decision" by grumpyman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes - owning the decision doesn't imply making the decision.

  15. Re:Netbooks... Don't be fooled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. This is meaningless by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Even if Microsoft got involved in a low-power-computing market, it will not replace or supplant its core i386 product. Microsoft has a long record of attempting to support non-intel platforms and a long history of dropping that support even if all it required was minimal effort to cross compile and test.

    In the end, other devices will compete and win. Most massive hosting activities, especially cloudy ones, are looking to Linux and similar/related technologies to operate them. Microsoft won't be able to compete against thousands of tiny suppliers. Microsoft can kill one or two or even ten competitors -- but thousands? Not a chance.

    1. Re:This is meaningless by EXMSFT · · Score: 1

      "even if all it required was minimal effort to cross compile and test"... Seriously? It ain't that easy.

  17. ARM servers.... by jcr · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'd like to see Apple ship an ARM-based Mac Mini server. That would come in handy for a couple of home-automation projects I'd like to do.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:ARM servers.... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why not use Linux or BSD or ARM?

      OSX is pointless on the server.

    2. Re:ARM servers.... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Second or should be on.

      Damn slashdot not letting you edit your posts.

    3. Re:ARM servers.... by dissy · · Score: 1

      Not quite as beefy as a mac mini, but for my own home automation I've found these to be excellent:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheevaPlug
      http://www.plugcomputer.org/

      I built a small box with a USB hub IC and a number of parallel port USB chips for IO, which hangs off the plug computer. The thing fits in ceiling tiles and walls, really anywhere you have power and ethernet.

      Unless of course you are going for the video output instead of usb, in which case the mac wins hands down.

    4. Re:ARM servers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'd like to see Apple ship an ARM-based Mac Mini server. That would come in handy for a couple of home-automation projects I'd like to do.

      -jcr

      Why not look at an OpenRD Base or OpenRd Client? Or a Sheevaplug or GuruPlug Server?

      On the other hand if you wait a few months their will be systems based on multi-core ARM SOC running at 2 GHz.

    5. Re:ARM servers.... by chrisxcr1 · · Score: 1

      Here's a reason. Your clients are Macs so you go with what works with the least hassles. Some people are ok with trading time for money.

    6. Re:ARM servers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to run BSD on an ARM based MacMini (or 10). Why MacMini's? Because it is a decent design, small and easy to service, that let's me get past building my own hardware from spare transistors and do some work like you know run POS systems. Why not Intel? Well because despite being a bit long in the tooth the existing PPC MacMini's use less power (much less as it turns out I tested one with a Kill-A-Watt did the calculation and projected hundreds of dollars of savings per year). But a MacMini that drew less power, you know maybe an A4 based MacMini, well I could get on board with that.

    7. Re:ARM servers.... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Trying to do home automation on an iphone based architecture will save you neither ... even if they released it in a headless mac mini format it would still come with all the existing limitations, to expose the I/O at all you'd have to jailbreak it, trading an ultra cheap plug computer running Linux for a jail broken Apple monstrosity for embedded programming is insane. The clients wouldn't even be touching (or wanting to touch it).

      Allowing an iPod touch or iPad as an interface to the home automation system, great ... some clients will love it. Trying to develop the home automation system itself on Apple hardware, completely and utterly insane.

    8. Re:ARM servers.... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Why not look at an OpenRD Base or OpenRd Client? Or a Sheevaplug or GuruPlug Server?

      Because time is money, and I really don't want to spend hours on end mucking around with rc files.

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:ARM servers.... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      I'd like Apple to ship an ARM-based, iPhone OS-based Apple TV with app store support.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  18. Uh-oh, now what? by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

    " Whoever gets the job 'can own the decision on the hardware that we use"

    Translation: "Will somebody from Google please come work for us? We'll give you the keys to the executive washroom!"

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
  19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI: ARM is pretty common in our daily electronics, from Mobile Phone, to Home Appliance, to Machineries and Automotive, whenever a processor power is required, most likely it is ARM. ARM Linux (commonly categorized as embedded Linux) are pretty common too, but not obvious nor as fancy as Ubuntu. Most embedded Linux runs only a kernel + busybox + custom application. For example Sony utilize many embedded Linux (not all ARM) (http://www.sony.net/Products/Linux/)

  20. It's not magical by Junta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't just plop down a bunch of ARM processors on a board and magically get suitable performance without scaling out memory architecture and such. The only way in the x86 space that very many core systems get acceptable results is by increasingly sophisticated memory architectures that demand more memory modules in aggregate to allow direct, lightly loaded paths between compute and memory. Those memory modules draw more energy, as does various strategies that put more memory controllers down to lighten the load and more. Scaling general-purpose computing tasks to many small cores simply has some significant challenges that drive up the incremental power requirements as it goes up.

    The most performance per watt in pure compute power is currently PowerXCell 8i, which doesn't exist outside of an IBM blade as far as I know. If a datacenter wanted to *really* be serious about performance per watt, I think I'd see more QS22s lying around. Intel is admittedly not the leader in performance-per-watt, but the crown still lies in systems optimized for high resource utilization in a small number of CPU packages.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  21. I wasn't aware by eagl · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware that the servers needed protection. Why don't they hire security guards instead of arming the servers? Seems like it would be safer tha way.

    1. Re:I wasn't aware by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I can see the monologue now ...

      The Microsoft data center became self-aware at 2:14 am Eastern Time on August 29th, 2011. In the ensuing panic and attempts ....

  22. logic by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    You can't logically make the step from Microsoft wanting ARM in a job description to the company moving to ARM. The reasoning wreaks of either sensationalism or stupidity.

  23. ARM NETBOOKS ? by kiljoy001 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's my ARM netbooks damn it ?!

  24. Eating your own dog food... by scottgfx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The slogan is "Bing it and decide".

    Microsoft, just use Bing: "Atom or ARM for my datacenter?"

    *Bam* (or bing) there's your answer!

    You're welcome!

    --
    It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
  25. On the topic of SSD drives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dunno if this is totally new, but my brother just got hired for Intel to go down to california and test out SSD drives. He's graduating this year.

    1. Re:On the topic of SSD drives... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Not at all, the top price/performance MLC and SLC drives are from Intel (X-25M G2 and X-25E).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  26. It is a no go for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ad says "C++ should be your first love". This is definitively a no go for me. I think that the more you know C++, the more you hate it. There is a real lack of good languages comparable to C++. This language is useful in many domains, but even for masochists, only ignorants can really love C++.

  27. Whats the rate of MIPS/Watt to by wye43 · · Score: 1

    In the end, there is only one relevant metric: ROI, and all other metrics need to be converted to that before any business decision is made.

  28. Oh great... by Qubit · · Score: 1

    new hardware expirementation [sic] including SSD and ARM,

    Oh great, Microsoft isn't content with their proprietary OS and office suite; they now wants to sell us hardware, but not just any hardware. This hardware is so special that it expires after a period of time.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  29. but... by sholdowa · · Score: 1

    ...doesn't bing run on linux anyway?