Your logic is based around the concept that every task is highly parallel - they're simply not.
Well, the server I am logged into right now has 358 processes running. Each of which has a least 1 lwp which equates to
at least one thread. How many people have a server running one process with one thread?
Even Sun don't claim that a T1 is comparable to an Itanium/Power/Sparc for tasks which need a few fast cores, which is why they use examples like Java application servers as the primary benchmark.
Like specweb? like sap sd 2 tier? like Lotus notes? These are just the published benches.
The Ultrasparc T1 is not a high-end machine, it's a low end one designed to compete against cheap x86 machines, I think the main surprise for me is that it's not available in a blade form-factor.
Exactly. The T1 costs $26K in it's most expensive config (32GB DDR2) for a 2u system capable of beating out
bigger, hotter Itanic, x86 and Power systems on certain workloads (contrary to what you think, those certain
workloads represent a significant segment of what customers buy these types of machines to do). There are
definite plans to have a blade version out this year.
n 90% or more of workloads out there, a 32 thread core would have about 28 cores sat idle and 4 cores working flat out.
Well, the majority of commercial apps have 2% fp instructions. Sun didn't just stick a finger in the air and say let's build an integer only processor. If
you look at the workloads that T1 is good at then look at the predominant workloads in procution today you will see that it covers pretty big 'niche' - in terms of
revenue and volume. Niagara 2 will be even better at this (it will have a fully pipelined fpu per core for starters)
...The reason why folks choose commercial distros like RedHat or Suse is because they are better for what people need -- they provide a supported, easier to configure setup which allows them to solve whatever problem they or their organization have with a minimum of fuss...
I would further clarify this by saying most commercial entities
want to run apps - this restricts the choice of OS to what those apps are qualified to run on.
Red Hat Linux Enterprise + support = money. Red Hat Enterprise (in the form of WBL or CENTOS) - support = no cost.
So you admit that you can't get RHEL from RH for free. That's point 1 that the OP made and which you tried with lots of spin
and bullshit to refute and failed.
You want to argue over support prices, fine... but that wasn't the question
It was the question. Just because you decided to answer a different question does not alter that fact. The op stated
that if he wanted to get and run RHEL from RH then it was $349 minimum. If he wanted to run Solaris from Sun it was free. You
seemed to have confused the free (as in speech) Opensolaris with the free (as in beer) Solaris 10.
I don't disagree that you can get the equivalent to RHEL from WBL etc. What I did disagree with was your aggressive
response to the OP who had actually posted facts and wasn't actually incorrect. I don't object being called Sun-fan
or Sun-fanboy but if you look at my posts, I believe I have just stuck to the facts rather than offer any opinion on
Sun or RH.
Out of interest, would RH support WBL should you subsequently decide to purchase a support contract?
Oh, and if you are still laboouring under the impression the RHEL is cheap, take a look at this:
Spin. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is available for nothing -- it's just not called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.... in every other way it is Red Hat Enterprise Linux. OpenSolaris (although critical components are not actually "open" in any way) is also available for nothing, but it's still called "OpenSolaris" because Sun make it available.
In neither case do you get *any* official support unless you pay for it. How many fucking hairs do you want to split in an attempt to big up Sun. Have you *no* shame? At long last, sir, have you no shame?
OMFG, this IS a joke right? Or are you REALLY this dumb? This is as simple as I can make
it:
1) Solaris 10 (NOT Opensolaris, NOT Opensolaris - there, did you get that?) is FREE to
use and is available for free download from Sun where you can use it for free and it's
free. Did I mention it is free?. You can also download the source code to Solaris
from Opensolaris should you so wish under a fully OSI approved open source license.
2) The OP's 1st POINT was that you CANNOT get RHEL from RH unless you BUY a support
contract. RHEL may be available for free from somewhere but it's not from RH. Whatever,
the OP's point is true.
Just to refresh your memory, this is what you quoted from the OP in your initial reply:
Now go look at : http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/serve [redhat.com] r/
The absolute cheapest edition is $349 and the top is $2499 !!
I can get Solaris for FREE.
For UltraSparc or for Intel or AMD Opteron.
So, to summarise:
You can get Solaris 10 for X86, X64 and SPARC from Sun where you can use it
free for commercial or domestic use. You can obtain the source from Opensolaris, make
a distro, do whatever the hell you like under the terms of the CDDL.
Sun ONLY charge for support. Nearly all of Sun's software stack, including dev tools,
is now free to use.
You can only get RHEL from RH if you buy a support contract.
If you compare support contract prices, Sun are much cheaper than RH.
These are just the facts that you tried to refute (piss poorly I might add). I really
don't want to get into a pissing contest with your moronic opinions so let's just stick
to the facts. btw, I am happy to eat crow if anything I have said isn't true.
Huh?
I don't need to get a clue. I know about CentOS and WBL. Let me try this again as you didn't
get it first time around:
You said:
Oh, I love that. Lets see. What exactly are you getting for the 349? An OS? No. You are getting support. How much does debian, opensuse.org, or fedora cost? Nothing. Which makes it == to OpenSolaris. But why did you compare linux support to sun's code? Well, that is called FUD (BTW, if you go to argue that Fedora is not Redhat, fine, then get centos, which is redhat enterprise sans support).
This was in response to the OP suggesting that you A) couldn't get RHEL without paying for
it and B) that Sun were actually much cheaper when comparing apples to apples.
You seem to be missing the point that you can get Solaris 10 (note, NOT opensolaris) from
Sun for FREE. Thats right, it's free for domestic AND commercial use. If you want a support
contract then that's what you pay for (not the OS). So you don't need to pay a penny if
you want to run Solaris and you can get it from Sun (i.e you don't have to get it from
somewhere else)
So, to be blunt, I haven't got a clue what you are on about as you don't seem to have
challenged the OP's points that Solaris is free (as in beer) and that you can't get
RHEL from RH without paying for a support contract.
Oh, I love that. Lets see. What exactly are you getting for the 349? An OS? No. You are getting support. How much does debian, opensuse.org, or fedora cost? Nothing. Which makes it == to OpenSolaris. But why did you compare linux support to sun's code? Well, that is called FUD (BTW, if you go to argue that Fedora is not Redhat, fine, then get centos, which is redhat enterprise sans support).
You're missing the point. The point was that you can't get Redhat EL from Redhat WITHOUT paying for support. You can get Solaris
from Sun NOW for FREE. If you want a support contract it's LESS than Redhat. i.e. you don't have to go to another company to
get Solaris for free. I would equate Fedora to Solaris Express. I don't know many people who run Solaris Express in a production
environment. The original statement was not FUD, just your ignorance made it seem so.
You can get an Ultra20 with Solaris and a support contract for the same as what you are paying Redhat at their minimum price.
Your wasting your time. I can no longer count the number of posts I have seen which
are similar, if not identical, to the one you are replying to. The crime is that
the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL (when it's really the conditions of the GPL
which enforce this). Nothing you can say will make these people understand the
reasons behind the CDDL and why it's ok to have a license that isn't the GPL. The
irony is that 'they' pillory Sun for it's business decisions but laud companies
like Redhat for doing the same. Why Redhat over Sun?
Does the GPL permit the release and distribution of a project which has dependencies on
a non-GPL object and has non-GPL objects dependent on it? For example could I take your
GPL project and add my own non-GPL object to it and distribute this but keeping my object
private because I don't want it under the GPL?
The idea was to create an opensolaris distribution which you could download and build and
which would work. If the non-GPL bits were not included it wouldn't have worked and wouldn't
have been a distribution. It would just have been a lots of code which Sun spent millions
licensing and developing tossed over the wall for the 'GPL community' to use as they wish
for free. This is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a free present for the 'GPL community'
to say Thanks for all the Support . It's for those who appreciate Solaris,
want to use it, want to develop it and build a community around it. You have to remember
that the vast majority of Sun's customers are businesses running enterprise software and the
first thing they do is not, in fact, install the GNU toolkit. Sun's first priority is to the
$ and it's stakeholders. If you think this not Redhat/HP/IBM/Novel/Suse priority list as well
then you are delusional. This means that the key objective of open sourcing solaris it to
add value, not so you can take the code and patch it straight into your GPL project. There is
no problem re-licensing your code under the CDDL and using whatever the hell you like so why
does everyone throw the toys out of the pram?.
At the end of the day the CDDL is an OSI approved open source license and is just as valid
as the GPL and I hardly think it's sptting in anyones face, especially the Sun loving/.
'GPL community' which has really got behind Sun in it's times of trouble.....
Every heard of domains?
Unlike upars these are also electrically isolated. Oh, and
upars can sap upto %30 of your performance. Bet IBM didn't tell
you that though.
Well, the USIV+ is also dual core. You also have Dynamic System Domains on
Sun enterprise hardware. Unlike LPARS and UPARS, DSD's give you total electrical isolation.
This is more of an issue with upars (upto 10 per cpu) as every upar would be
affected by a failure. Solaris 10 gives you application containers (zones) which
fit pretty well into the DSD's concept. Uses DSD's to slice up your server at
the hardware level and then use zones to create your application containers in
your domains. Domains area also fully dynamic so components can be swapped in
and out without taking the domain down.
No. I work for Sun and was privy to the process. You can't distribute
under the GPL if the resultant object(s) contains GPL and non-GPL code (i.e.
encumbered code which we did not have the rights to re-license under the
GPL). Basically, opensolaris would not have been legally possible under the
GPL in it's current form. The CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
which was created to allow Sun to release Opensolaris (file based rather than
project based) and to provide the best value to it's contributors and
stakeholders. The GPL isn't the be all and end all of software licensing
you know.
You haven't got a clue so shut up. The GPL was NOT an option because
the distribution contains files for which Sun does not have the rights
to. This is why the CDDL is file based.
On Niagara, you effectively have 4 hardware thread contexts (strands)
per core. If all these strands can run then context is switched
every cycle. If a strand is stalled then it is parked and gives
up it's cycles to other strands which can run until it's stall
condition is alleviated.
Note, this is different to a scheduler context switch.
Erm, I was actually challenging the guy who said that Systemtap was better to
actually prove that. I am a Dtrace guy.
Well, you pre-empted pretty much anything he/she might have said in response:-)
Well done.
Come back when it's released and you can run it safely on a production system.
Can you elaborate your claims? ("Linux has SystemTap, which goes above and beyond what DTrace is capable of....")
>>kprobes can do all the same stuff, dtrace is just packaged nicely....
Unless it has been improved significantly, no it cannot. Please see the following
blog post by Bryan Cantrill which debunks this:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bmc?anchor=dtrace _vs_dprobes_ltt
In a bid to reduce cost, the UK company outsources, yet does not setup procedures to make sure the customer data is safe
In that case what they are doing is illegal as the
data protection act 1998 prohibits the movement of
personal data outside the EU unless safety mechanisms exist to ensure it's security.
Very cool, while I'm on a roll... what about TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT too ?:)
Well, I am going to have a think about this one for
a bit longer. On the plus side, it's good for
linux source compatability. On the negative side,
it feels like a protocol violation to me and I am
not sure if what it buys you outweighs. It's trivial
to implement so I might file an RFE to do this (if
I can convince myself that it's acceptable behaviour;-)
TCP_CORK support integrated into Nevada build 12
so should be in Solaris Express and probably a Solaris
10 update. Fireengine is a lot more than additional API support. Locking is massively reduced, scalability and throughput are massively increased. It scales connections across available CPU's and uses serialization queues to avoid locking where possible. You can take a look now;-)
As for TCP, I did understand what you wrote. TCP is
a byte stream protocol so the preservation of message boundaries is neither here nor there. As I said, the s10 stack will amortize packet cost with the cost of reconstituting messages. You rightly point out that it's an application defect to rely on undefined behaviour (the Solaris behaviour is just an artifact of the implementation which has also changed in s10). Was the client not using Nagle?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the majority of commercial apps have 2% fp instructions. Sun didn't just stick a finger in the air and say let's build an integer only processor. If you look at the workloads that T1 is good at then look at the predominant workloads in procution today you will see that it covers pretty big 'niche' - in terms of revenue and volume. Niagara 2 will be even better at this (it will have a fully pipelined fpu per core for starters)
That service is provided by the hypervisor and has nothing at all to do with linux.
I would love to see a CEO indicted for 'not being an arse'
Your wasting your time. I can no longer count the number of posts I have seen which are similar, if not identical, to the one you are replying to. The crime is that the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL (when it's really the conditions of the GPL which enforce this). Nothing you can say will make these people understand the reasons behind the CDDL and why it's ok to have a license that isn't the GPL. The irony is that 'they' pillory Sun for it's business decisions but laud companies like Redhat for doing the same. Why Redhat over Sun?
Does the GPL permit the release and distribution of a project which has dependencies on a non-GPL object and has non-GPL objects dependent on it? For example could I take your GPL project and add my own non-GPL object to it and distribute this but keeping my object private because I don't want it under the GPL? The idea was to create an opensolaris distribution which you could download and build and which would work. If the non-GPL bits were not included it wouldn't have worked and wouldn't have been a distribution. It would just have been a lots of code which Sun spent millions licensing and developing tossed over the wall for the 'GPL community' to use as they wish for free. This is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a free present for the 'GPL community' to say Thanks for all the Support . It's for those who appreciate Solaris, want to use it, want to develop it and build a community around it. You have to remember that the vast majority of Sun's customers are businesses running enterprise software and the first thing they do is not, in fact, install the GNU toolkit. Sun's first priority is to the $ and it's stakeholders. If you think this not Redhat/HP/IBM/Novel/Suse priority list as well then you are delusional. This means that the key objective of open sourcing solaris it to add value, not so you can take the code and patch it straight into your GPL project. There is no problem re-licensing your code under the CDDL and using whatever the hell you like so why does everyone throw the toys out of the pram?. At the end of the day the CDDL is an OSI approved open source license and is just as valid as the GPL and I hardly think it's sptting in anyones face, especially the Sun loving /.
'GPL community' which has really got behind Sun in it's times of trouble.....
Every heard of domains? Unlike upars these are also electrically isolated. Oh, and upars can sap upto %30 of your performance. Bet IBM didn't tell you that though.
Well, the USIV+ is also dual core. You also have Dynamic System Domains on Sun enterprise hardware. Unlike LPARS and UPARS, DSD's give you total electrical isolation. This is more of an issue with upars (upto 10 per cpu) as every upar would be affected by a failure. Solaris 10 gives you application containers (zones) which fit pretty well into the DSD's concept. Uses DSD's to slice up your server at the hardware level and then use zones to create your application containers in your domains. Domains area also fully dynamic so components can be swapped in and out without taking the domain down.
No. I work for Sun and was privy to the process. You can't distribute under the GPL if the resultant object(s) contains GPL and non-GPL code (i.e. encumbered code which we did not have the rights to re-license under the GPL). Basically, opensolaris would not have been legally possible under the GPL in it's current form. The CDDL is an OSI approved open source license which was created to allow Sun to release Opensolaris (file based rather than project based) and to provide the best value to it's contributors and stakeholders. The GPL isn't the be all and end all of software licensing you know.
Whatever. It's still the main reason.
You haven't got a clue so shut up. The GPL was NOT an option because the distribution contains files for which Sun does not have the rights to. This is why the CDDL is file based.
On Niagara, you effectively have 4 hardware thread contexts (strands) per core. If all these strands can run then context is switched every cycle. If a strand is stalled then it is parked and gives up it's cycles to other strands which can run until it's stall condition is alleviated. Note, this is different to a scheduler context switch.
Erm, I was actually challenging the guy who said that Systemtap was better to actually prove that. I am a Dtrace guy. Well, you pre-empted pretty much anything he/she might have said in response :-)
>>kprobes can do all the same stuff, dtrace is just packaged nicely ....
Unless it has been improved significantly, no it cannot. Please see the following
blog post by Bryan Cantrill which debunks this:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bmc?anchor=dtrace _vs_dprobes_ltt
Here, Here. I mean, IBM, the GOOD guys. Come on!!!
Yep, they all fail the turing test
TCP_CORK support integrated into Nevada build 12 so should be in Solaris Express and probably a Solaris 10 update. Fireengine is a lot more than additional API support. Locking is massively reduced, scalability and throughput are massively increased. It scales connections across available CPU's and uses serialization queues to avoid locking where possible. You can take a look now ;-)
As for TCP, I did understand what you wrote. TCP is
a byte stream protocol so the preservation of message boundaries is neither here nor there. As I said, the s10 stack will amortize packet cost with the cost of reconstituting messages. You rightly point out that it's an application defect to rely on undefined behaviour (the Solaris behaviour is just an artifact of the implementation which has also changed in s10). Was the client not using Nagle?