"The appliance combines Intel Nehalem processors with up to 5TB of flash memory, fast DDR3 memory and SAS disks running at 6Gbps with a 40Gbps InifinBand network"
And don't forget that IBM's latest POWER chips use the same execution engines as the SystemZ CPUs, just with different instruction decoders and a few specialised parts unique to each design; the majority of both chips is the same.
And why do you think that is? Because they have been adding the mainframe ops to Power every generation so they can eventually have 1 single proc line instead of 2 (used to be 3 for servers, 4 if you include the mac stuff).
What is your point with this statement? That having all of the advanced features found on the mainframe CPU is a bad thing?
"Not many": Do you know that? Because you posted that like you do actually know, as opposed to pure speculation.
My guess (just an opinion) is that it would absolutely require a large investment in custom software and manpower to create the infrastructure that google has created. And it makes sense for them and is probably worth it.
The largest box is 4 proc. Power procs are designed to scale and they sell 32 and 64 proc systems (as does HP with Itanium). T2 doesn't go here and Sparc (as in UltraSparcs) gets beat easily.
I generally agree. The writing is and has been on the wall since intel got their act together:
1) intel is winning due to volume and execution
2) there is room for other players in other niches (large=IBM Power, small=ARM, etc.)
The advantage Power7 will still have over intel cpu's is that they are designed for large scale SMP, intel will still not be able to touch Power7 in 32 and 64 proc systems.
Rock is dead and won't be revived. Performance was tied to the thread hardware scout which simply did not end up working out like they thought it might.
Interview I read the other day with "monty" (I think that's his name) indicated 2 points:
1) Corp customers in EU switching from Oracle to MySQL are/have switched to a version that is not open source. It's not the same animal as the open source MySQL.
2) As evidence of it not being a red herring the EU offered to drop their investigation if oracle would divest of MySQL, but Oracle won't do that.
If what you say is true, then why did Oracle expend so much effort trying to purchase just the software from Sun (prior to IBM getting involved) while the hardware went to HP?
>> provides features you can only appreciate on a 120hz display
I enjoy the following features of my GTX280 (used for calcs not games):
CUDA (I compile C code, throw in a couple of lines of stuff for the GPU and it runs on the GPU, easy)
Hardware optimizes my memory accesses and at times branchy code so the GPU is doing as much work as possible (makes it easy to get good results on the GPU)
One possible reason is that they didn't want to buy the hardware in the first place, they worked hard to make a deal that was software only, going to the extent of working out a combined deal where HP would get the hardware and Oracle the Software.
You can still provide the whole stack without being in the incredibly expensive and highly competitive CPU business.
"Now that we have CPUs with literally more cores than we know what to do with,"
For many problems, multi-core CPU's aren't even close to having enough power, that's why all of the interest in utilizing the GPU processing power.
They are different ends of a spectrum: CPU generally=fast serial processing, GPU generally=slow serial, fast parallel. Some problems require fast serial processing, some require fast parallel processing and some are in between. Both are valuable tools and neither will replace the other, although merging them onto one chip with shared memory/cache would be great.
The problem is typically with how you set up your data structures to solve the problem at hand. When I converted my CPU code to run on a GPU, I had to go through and re-work the problem. I changed the way my data was stored, which was previously optimized for CPU serial processing and caching etc. to something that matched the GPU's model of queuing up read requests of multiple adjacent words while previously read memory is being processed.
These types of changes aren't really optimizations the compiler can do.
Hardware x86 was dropped from Itanium when Itanium 2 came out, from then on it's a software emulator. So if your ZX6000 has an older Itanium processor then it probably has the x86 hardware on the chip.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like you are talking a different language, can you use a car analogy please?
Actually, all he had to say was "multi-user app record locking, how?".
Whether it's for the web or not, these are the same issues and same methods used for multi-user apps since the 60's.
I used OS/9 on the trash 80 coco also, was great at the time
That Exadata box they announced:
"The appliance combines Intel Nehalem processors with up to 5TB of flash memory, fast DDR3 memory and SAS disks running at 6Gbps with a 40Gbps InifinBand network"
And don't forget that IBM's latest POWER chips use the same execution engines as the SystemZ CPUs, just with different instruction decoders and a few specialised parts unique to each design; the majority of both chips is the same.
And why do you think that is? Because they have been adding the mainframe ops to Power every generation so they can eventually have 1 single proc line instead of 2 (used to be 3 for servers, 4 if you include the mac stuff).
What is your point with this statement? That having all of the advanced features found on the mainframe CPU is a bad thing?
"Not many": Do you know that? Because you posted that like you do actually know, as opposed to pure speculation.
My guess (just an opinion) is that it would absolutely require a large investment in custom software and manpower to create the infrastructure that google has created. And it makes sense for them and is probably worth it.
Here is a problem with T2: it can't scale.
The largest box is 4 proc. Power procs are designed to scale and they sell 32 and 64 proc systems (as does HP with Itanium). T2 doesn't go here and Sparc (as in UltraSparcs) gets beat easily.
I use it on windows, it will be a bummer if it goes away.
I generally agree. The writing is and has been on the wall since intel got their act together:
1) intel is winning due to volume and execution
2) there is room for other players in other niches (large=IBM Power, small=ARM, etc.)
The advantage Power7 will still have over intel cpu's is that they are designed for large scale SMP, intel will still not be able to touch Power7 in 32 and 64 proc systems.
Rock is dead and won't be revived. Performance was tied to the thread hardware scout which simply did not end up working out like they thought it might.
Interview I read the other day with "monty" (I think that's his name) indicated 2 points:
1) Corp customers in EU switching from Oracle to MySQL are/have switched to a version that is not open source. It's not the same animal as the open source MySQL.
2) As evidence of it not being a red herring the EU offered to drop their investigation if oracle would divest of MySQL, but Oracle won't do that.
If what you say is true, then why did Oracle expend so much effort trying to purchase just the software from Sun (prior to IBM getting involved) while the hardware went to HP?
It's only frightening when operating a quantum computer becomes trivial.
"Congratulations on your purchase. To begin using your quantum computer, set the power switch to both off and on simultaneously."
>> provides features you can only appreciate on a 120hz display
I enjoy the following features of my GTX280 (used for calcs not games):
CUDA (I compile C code, throw in a couple of lines of stuff for the GPU and it runs on the GPU, easy)
Hardware optimizes my memory accesses and at times branchy code so the GPU is doing as much work as possible (makes it easy to get good results on the GPU)
"GPUs however are a completely different ballgame, where the performance of the card pretty much scales with the number of shader cores."
But only to the degree that your problem maps to that level of parallelization. There are many problems that do not perform well on the GPU.
One possible reason is that they didn't want to buy the hardware in the first place, they worked hard to make a deal that was software only, going to the extent of working out a combined deal where HP would get the hardware and Oracle the Software.
You can still provide the whole stack without being in the incredibly expensive and highly competitive CPU business.
If they've broken the terms of a contract, it is the correct method of resolution.
Guaranteed to work 60% of the time, every time!
Great. Now they know we're here. What a freakin' moron. -Other BrainChip
"Now that we have CPUs with literally more cores than we know what to do with,"
For many problems, multi-core CPU's aren't even close to having enough power, that's why all of the interest in utilizing the GPU processing power.
They are different ends of a spectrum: CPU generally=fast serial processing, GPU generally=slow serial, fast parallel. Some problems require fast serial processing, some require fast parallel processing and some are in between. Both are valuable tools and neither will replace the other, although merging them onto one chip with shared memory/cache would be great.
CUDA allows you to easily compile C code to run on the GPU, not the reverse.
The problem is typically with how you set up your data structures to solve the problem at hand. When I converted my CPU code to run on a GPU, I had to go through and re-work the problem. I changed the way my data was stored, which was previously optimized for CPU serial processing and caching etc. to something that matched the GPU's model of queuing up read requests of multiple adjacent words while previously read memory is being processed.
These types of changes aren't really optimizations the compiler can do.
"The most likely scenario is..." a black hole that will swallow everything that isn't nailed down!
Saw Aliens in the theater opening night, I had to keep telling myself to relax, that was a fun ride.
Hardware x86 was dropped from Itanium when Itanium 2 came out, from then on it's a software emulator. So if your ZX6000 has an older Itanium processor then it probably has the x86 hardware on the chip.