Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Apr 2010 23:51 UTC
IBM This article describes a real-word software port, with examples of how various porting challenges are resolved. If you are a software developer porting software to UNIX, you will find these techniques invaluable in avoiding common pitfalls, resolving bugs, and improving your productivity.
Permalink for comment 419655
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
foobar
Member since:
2006-02-07

""You are not accounting for cores/chips/processors correctly. A 64 processor z10 is actually 64 cores. An 8 socket nehalem is 64 cores. If you want per core performance, then it is 3200/64 = 50 emulated mips, and 50 * 5 = 250. So you need 120 nehalem cores by your hoakie numbers."


I didnt get that. Could you explain again? It seems that you claim that 64 Mainframe CPUs have in total: 64 cores? Then it must mean that Mainframe CPUs are single cores. I thought they were quad core?
"

Yup, I didn't think that you would actually look at the redbook that I linked. The big z10 machine has 4 books. Books have many chips on the MCM. 5 of them are processor chips. Each processor chip has 4 cores. There are a grand total of 80 cores in a z10. After subtracting 11 for SAPs, 2 for spares, and 3 for cores that don't pass manufacturing tests, there are 64 cores for customers to run their favorite operating systems on.

In IBM-speak a way or a processor is a core. It's been that way for 10 years with the i/p/z stuff. You are very quick to make claims about how bad IBM is, yet you don't know such details? Are you making judgments based on you're own personal biases, or the technical facts?

Why don't you read a little about the hardware that you are bashing? Next time we can have a better argument ;)

Who (except IBM) is interested in performance per core? I am comparing one Mainframe cpu vs Nehalem-EX cpu. Not core vs core. I dont claim that Nehalem-EX core is faster than Mainframe core. (This is typical FUD from IBM: shift focus from cpu vs cpu, to something else, such as core vs core.)


If you want to argue cpu vs cpu, then you need to state that up front instead of making unsubstantiated claims and then babbling about extrapolated emulation performance.

Like it or not. In the real world, outside of the desktop, hobby realm, there's an awful lot of applications that are still priced per core. This is true for all platforms.

Could please explain again, why an Nehalem-EX cpu is slower than a Mainframe CPU? Note that I wrote "CPU" not, core, or ALU, or registers, or whatever. Just because one part of the CPU is faster - it doesnt say anything about the entire cpu. "My car has a better ignition mechanism than your car, therefore my car is faster than yours" - plain FUD. You must compare car vs car, not some small part vs another part. No one is interested in that small part.


Could we please back up and remember what this thread is about? You made an unsubstantiated claim about a "dog slow", and "1/10th of the speed":

As I have shown, a modern x86 cpu is roughly 10x faster than a Mainframe CPU. Why port from fast x86 cpus, to dog slow cpus? I dont understand why you want to get 1/10th of the speed?


Then when I challenged you, you built an argument on a Wikipedia post that had extrapolated performance numbers. Somehow you twisted the numbers to conclude that an 8 socket nehalem machine can replace a fully populated z10.

If you would have kept your argument brief and used technical facts, I would have admitted that 4 z10 cores on a chip vs 8 Nehalem cores on a chip is probably 60%. But you chose to talk in circles about emulation and leave out important details about each machine.

""While we're throwing around hoakie numbers, lets account for the other cores in the z10. Not channel cards, but the z10 cores characterized as SAPs and CFs. Since, IBM actually measured that 30,000 MIPs number, we should include the cores doing IO. For the biggest machine, that's another 11 cores. 11 * (30,500/64) = 5200 MIPS. So we can estimate that a z10 is really capable of 35,700 MIPS."



Come on, this is really silly of you. You dont want to do this comparison. You would be really upset if I claimed (just like you do): "Well, the latest Nvidia card is capable of TeraFlops, therefore the Nehalem-EX server must be faster than the Mainframe server".

Now THAT comparison would be hoakie, dont you agree? But it is ok if IBMers do this comparison, right?
"

I wouldn't have used the word "hoakie" if I was serious. Remember, you started the silliness with extrapolated emulation numbers when you really wanted to compare native applications.

BTW, I talked with another IBMer who claimed that: despite you need four POWER6 cpus to match two Intel (ordinary) Nehalem, the POWER6 is faster. Because it has higher clocked core, or something weird. I never understood his logic. It was really weird. Then he started to talk about pricing, the POWER6 software licenses would be cheaper, therefore the POWER6 is faster. I dont get it, where all IBMers find that weird stuff to say? The funny thing is, they BELIEVE it is true! :o) Even today he is convinced that POWER6 is faster than Nehalem. I couldnt talk him out of it. No matter what I said, he refused to listen. :o)


At this point, I really don't believe you. I think you're making stuff up now. Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. See what happens when I change a few words:

BTW, I talked with another Sunshiner who claimed that: despite you need four Niagara cpus to match two Intel (ordinary) Nehalem, the Niagara is faster. Because it has lower clocked core, or something weird. I never understood his logic. It was really weird. Then he started to talk about pricing, the Niagara software licenses would be cheaper, therefore the Niagara is faster. I dont get it, where all Sunshiners find that weird stuff to say? The funny thing is, they BELIEVE it is true! :o) Even today he is convinced that Niagara is faster than Nehalem. I couldnt talk him out of it. No matter what I said, he refused to listen. :o)

Reply Parent Score: 1