And in what ragged and damaged interpretation of the Constitution would that be? Which power granted to the government does it fall under? You do realize the Constitution is a listing of the rights of the government and not the rights granted by it, don't you?
I can imagine Oracle screwed this up. If you have ever heard the asinine things that they require you to do, but remain willfully undocumented because they make no sense, it would not appear surprising.
The pride and arrogance in this trend of "I am god" here is sickening. I was part of a 2 man crew on a company of 40 people and it sucked. I got called on my way to vacation, on vacation and on the way back. I was called when ON the doctor's table. I left, and while I value the learning opportunities I was given, it is no way to run a company.
If a company does not value IT and the efforts put into maintaining it, then they are bleeding you and deceiving themselves.
Ok, I tried to be somewhat cordial, but perhaps you need the proverbial smack in the mouth.
HT is a performance sync in a lot of applications. Maybe you work in a small shop and do stupid things, but I do not. If the word enterprise is a foreign one, perhaps you should pay attention. Oracle recommends turning off HT on databases, due to performance problems. Solid NTP is near impossible with HT without locking NTP down with processor affinity. Also, changing clock speeds with any form of turbo or reduced clock speed can impact your time resolution. When you need to be within about 300 microseconds (that's right, not milli, micro) between machines, that is a Big F'n Deal! If machines are not all performing the same, this can cause an SEC investigation if the results are shown to favor someone in the market more than others. Oh, you didn't work for an exchange? I did.
My points were that HT is not necessarily the performance boost that it is marketed as. It SHOULD be turned off in numerous cases and still causes issues when there is contention of resources. That can cause a context switch, which in turn, is usually a 50-150 microsecond penalty. The reason AMD was chosen was the application needed more threads than could be serviced by a similar intel setup (needed to go to 4 sockets rather than 2) without HT. HT was a non starter.
Also, the reason that a 3 channel memory configuration was a pain in the ass was not because I, as a systems engineer couldn't figure it out, but again, as enterprise seems to be a difficult concept for you, imagine having to do a field upgrade or change, where all machines have to be identical, but 5 different field service techs are dispatched, all with the equivalent of a GED and rudimentary grasp of English or technology. I did not sit in the data center. Do you know how lights-out data centers operate? The machines had to be serviced around the world. The configurations being simpler on the AMD side made it more likely that the field service guys would not fuck it up.
Lastly, I give a shit about your Tyan motherboard (Oh, and I did know about the socket name, thanks very much. I was there for NDA screenings of AMD's roadmap at my previous employer's premises). I am talking about vendors like HP, Dell and IBM who have world support. Tell me when a technician from Tyan is going to drop into a DC in Switzerland to do a rip and replace, then I might care.
So, in conclusion, your working on a few racks of machines is irrelevant. When you have to design an infrastructure around how an application behaves in a complex interconnected way, on different continents as well as taking into account the serviceability of the machines, latency, throughput, and overall performance characteristics to the point where the machines cannot be more than X feet apart due to preferential lengths of network cable you and I can talk more.
Actually I am not an AMD Fanboy. I currently only own 1 AMD machine, an older Dell that I bought back in '07 that acts as a fileserver. My 2 laptops, and desktop are all running intel CPUs. At work, we use intel almost exclusively (I'm a systems engineer). At my previous company, we did switch to AMD, at my recommendation, because they needed the actual threads and HT would have cost them about 30% performance.
My issue with intel was not the fact that there are electrical signaling issues when trying to install a lot of memory, but rather that intel's design required a multiple of 3 instead of 4 which often caused a dance of the slots. I have spoken to AMD and Intel engineers. AMD's new offering will run at 1600 until you fill past a major point, then step down to 1333. Intel does not make it as simple, and when dealing with field service it is easier to have them work on an AMD machine.
While not an issue right NOW, the original EM64T did have an issue with pointers. The issue was that there was no hardware IOMMU for them. Thus, in order to DMA memory above 32bit allocation, they had to use pointers.
Software IOTLB — Intel® EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel "bounces" all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel® EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors
The point was "There are no benchmarks" so hold off judgement until we see how it handles work. AMD did introduce real cores, what they do have, however are a poorly implemented shared FPU design. It is like they are trying to shoe-horn server chips at people. FPU matters a lot less to most server tasks.
Intel's memory controller has issues too. The configuration of servers with high amounts of RAM becomes needlessly complicated when dealing with intel as to prevent the performance dropping when stepping from 1333 to 1066 to 800MHz in certain configurations. The new Interlagos chips run at 1600. Call me when you have actual benchmarks of Interlagos, and finally decide that explicitly parallel jobs benefit more from actual cores than from hyperthreading.
Which is why they fought tooth and nail and then implemented a poorer version of it (original EM64T had issues with pointers) after the fact. Somebody forgot their history.
The problems with EPIC are the poor performance for certain applications as well as limited jumps in performance compared to the leaps that x86 gets, despite being a problematic architecture.
AMD already had the on die memory controller. Their answer to intel's Hyperthreading was real cores. The QPI bus that intel uses is very similar to the one AMD pioneered with Hypertransport. Let's not forget that AMD64 (oh, did you want me to call it EM64T or x86_64?) was a product of AMD's engineering effort rather than forcing people toward the EPIC architecture which seems to be niche based.
It sounds like he licensed JUST THE RIGHT version for what he had. Nobody had a future looking crystal ball to see that VMware would milk their customers this way. Also, the vRAM entitlements are not about the physical RAM, but allocated/active RAM within the machine/cluster. VMware was touting that you could over allocate RAM because of how it handled duplicate pages. Then, when this feature was widely used, they penalize people for doing so.
Loose is the opposite of tight. Lose is when something is lost. RAID is NOT evil. BAD RAID is evil. If you have proper RAID then you get checksums and can recover. You should also have backups.
why not mirror them to other nodes using DRBD or something like Hadoop where there are copies of parts of data distributed across a larger subset of machines?
The CIO is not capable of doing his job if he doesn't understand that mitigation of risks involving purchases as well as projects in IT is his job. If he believes that assigning risks to the future is the best way to handle that job then he should be removed. There are many things that require additional support. The issue is not one of Red Hat vs CentOS (and CentOS does not have all the latest fixes as well as there being additional issues revolved around Red Hat's change in patch structure).
There are too many things critical to operation that cannot be contained without support. That support buys you bug fixes, as well as the ability to escalate towards people who do things like actually write the kernel or device drivers.
Desktop support and web development aside, big companies use them for a reason. Power is still a viable architecture and AIX is a good OS. Not everyone can run their business on MySQL.
I believe this was not referencing the host OS (As in any sane environment, they would be using Vsphere/ESX/ESXi. However, when a host fails, the guests then reboot when they have been assigned new hosts. If you are using large servers that handle 60+ guests, and lose a host, those 60+ guests now have to reread their disks, potentially get DHCP addresses, and pull up network shares, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think all warp capable vessels in Star Fleet have deflector arrays? Gosh, kids today not paying attention in interstellar physics...
Grant them, yes, but not set terms to force someone to do what you describe.
And in what ragged and damaged interpretation of the Constitution would that be? Which power granted to the government does it fall under? You do realize the Constitution is a listing of the rights of the government and not the rights granted by it, don't you?
Mitt, stop posting to slashdot.
I can imagine Oracle screwed this up. If you have ever heard the asinine things that they require you to do, but remain willfully undocumented because they make no sense, it would not appear surprising.
The pride and arrogance in this trend of "I am god" here is sickening. I was part of a 2 man crew on a company of 40 people and it sucked. I got called on my way to vacation, on vacation and on the way back. I was called when ON the doctor's table. I left, and while I value the learning opportunities I was given, it is no way to run a company.
If a company does not value IT and the efforts put into maintaining it, then they are bleeding you and deceiving themselves.
Why does (fake) party affiliation mean anything. I did not call him out for being a Democrat. I called him out for being a moron.
And if this idjit is still there, I know I am voting THEM out. What a maroon.
Sink, not sync
Ok, I tried to be somewhat cordial, but perhaps you need the proverbial smack in the mouth.
HT is a performance sync in a lot of applications. Maybe you work in a small shop and do stupid things, but I do not. If the word enterprise is a foreign one, perhaps you should pay attention. Oracle recommends turning off HT on databases, due to performance problems. Solid NTP is near impossible with HT without locking NTP down with processor affinity. Also, changing clock speeds with any form of turbo or reduced clock speed can impact your time resolution. When you need to be within about 300 microseconds (that's right, not milli, micro) between machines, that is a Big F'n Deal! If machines are not all performing the same, this can cause an SEC investigation if the results are shown to favor someone in the market more than others. Oh, you didn't work for an exchange? I did.
My points were that HT is not necessarily the performance boost that it is marketed as. It SHOULD be turned off in numerous cases and still causes issues when there is contention of resources. That can cause a context switch, which in turn, is usually a 50-150 microsecond penalty. The reason AMD was chosen was the application needed more threads than could be serviced by a similar intel setup (needed to go to 4 sockets rather than 2) without HT. HT was a non starter.
Also, the reason that a 3 channel memory configuration was a pain in the ass was not because I, as a systems engineer couldn't figure it out, but again, as enterprise seems to be a difficult concept for you, imagine having to do a field upgrade or change, where all machines have to be identical, but 5 different field service techs are dispatched, all with the equivalent of a GED and rudimentary grasp of English or technology. I did not sit in the data center. Do you know how lights-out data centers operate? The machines had to be serviced around the world. The configurations being simpler on the AMD side made it more likely that the field service guys would not fuck it up.
Lastly, I give a shit about your Tyan motherboard (Oh, and I did know about the socket name, thanks very much. I was there for NDA screenings of AMD's roadmap at my previous employer's premises). I am talking about vendors like HP, Dell and IBM who have world support. Tell me when a technician from Tyan is going to drop into a DC in Switzerland to do a rip and replace, then I might care.
So, in conclusion, your working on a few racks of machines is irrelevant. When you have to design an infrastructure around how an application behaves in a complex interconnected way, on different continents as well as taking into account the serviceability of the machines, latency, throughput, and overall performance characteristics to the point where the machines cannot be more than X feet apart due to preferential lengths of network cable you and I can talk more.
Actually I am not an AMD Fanboy. I currently only own 1 AMD machine, an older Dell that I bought back in '07 that acts as a fileserver. My 2 laptops, and desktop are all running intel CPUs. At work, we use intel almost exclusively (I'm a systems engineer). At my previous company, we did switch to AMD, at my recommendation, because they needed the actual threads and HT would have cost them about 30% performance.
My issue with intel was not the fact that there are electrical signaling issues when trying to install a lot of memory, but rather that intel's design required a multiple of 3 instead of 4 which often caused a dance of the slots. I have spoken to AMD and Intel engineers. AMD's new offering will run at 1600 until you fill past a major point, then step down to 1333. Intel does not make it as simple, and when dealing with field service it is easier to have them work on an AMD machine.
While not an issue right NOW, the original EM64T did have an issue with pointers. The issue was that there was no hardware IOMMU for them. Thus, in order to DMA memory above 32bit allocation, they had to use pointers.
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/3/html/Release_Notes/as-amd64/RELEASE-NOTES-U2-x86_64-en.html
Software IOTLB — Intel® EM64T does not support an IOMMU in hardware while AMD64 processors do. This means that physical addresses above 4GB (32 bits) cannot reliably be the source or destination of DMA operations. Therefore, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 2 kernel "bounces" all DMA operations to or from physical addresses above 4GB to buffers that the kernel pre-allocated below 4GB at boot time. This is likely to result in lower performance for IO-intensive workloads for Intel® EM64T as compared to AMD64 processors
The point was "There are no benchmarks" so hold off judgement until we see how it handles work. AMD did introduce real cores, what they do have, however are a poorly implemented shared FPU design. It is like they are trying to shoe-horn server chips at people. FPU matters a lot less to most server tasks.
Intel's memory controller has issues too. The configuration of servers with high amounts of RAM becomes needlessly complicated when dealing with intel as to prevent the performance dropping when stepping from 1333 to 1066 to 800MHz in certain configurations. The new Interlagos chips run at 1600. Call me when you have actual benchmarks of Interlagos, and finally decide that explicitly parallel jobs benefit more from actual cores than from hyperthreading.
Which is why they fought tooth and nail and then implemented a poorer version of it (original EM64T had issues with pointers) after the fact. Somebody forgot their history.
The problems with EPIC are the poor performance for certain applications as well as limited jumps in performance compared to the leaps that x86 gets, despite being a problematic architecture.
AMD already had the on die memory controller. Their answer to intel's Hyperthreading was real cores. The QPI bus that intel uses is very similar to the one AMD pioneered with Hypertransport. Let's not forget that AMD64 (oh, did you want me to call it EM64T or x86_64?) was a product of AMD's engineering effort rather than forcing people toward the EPIC architecture which seems to be niche based.
It sounds like he licensed JUST THE RIGHT version for what he had. Nobody had a future looking crystal ball to see that VMware would milk their customers this way. Also, the vRAM entitlements are not about the physical RAM, but allocated/active RAM within the machine/cluster. VMware was touting that you could over allocate RAM because of how it handled duplicate pages. Then, when this feature was widely used, they penalize people for doing so.
Let us not forget things like KVM+ovirt
Loose is the opposite of tight. Lose is when something is lost. RAID is NOT evil. BAD RAID is evil. If you have proper RAID then you get checksums and can recover. You should also have backups.
why not mirror them to other nodes using DRBD or something like Hadoop where there are copies of parts of data distributed across a larger subset of machines?
The CIO is not capable of doing his job if he doesn't understand that mitigation of risks involving purchases as well as projects in IT is his job. If he believes that assigning risks to the future is the best way to handle that job then he should be removed. There are many things that require additional support. The issue is not one of Red Hat vs CentOS (and CentOS does not have all the latest fixes as well as there being additional issues revolved around Red Hat's change in patch structure).
There are too many things critical to operation that cannot be contained without support. That support buys you bug fixes, as well as the ability to escalate towards people who do things like actually write the kernel or device drivers.
Desktop support and web development aside, big companies use them for a reason. Power is still a viable architecture and AIX is a good OS. Not everyone can run their business on MySQL.
If you don't know what they are you don't really exist in a major IT organization.
Don't confuse Federal government with government. Who runs public schools? Their local/state governments do.
I believe this was not referencing the host OS (As in any sane environment, they would be using Vsphere/ESX/ESXi. However, when a host fails, the guests then reboot when they have been assigned new hosts. If you are using large servers that handle 60+ guests, and lose a host, those 60+ guests now have to reread their disks, potentially get DHCP addresses, and pull up network shares, etc.