Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2008 20:44 UTC, submitted by Moochman
Oracle and SUN Engadget got the chance to sit down with Jonathan Schwartz, the pony-tailed CEO of Sun Microsystems. Being the gadget blog that they are, Engadget asked Schwartz about the long-missing JavaFX Mobile platform Sun has promised, Java on the iPhone, and competing with Microsoft as an open source vendor.
Thread beginning with comment 312753
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Shame ...
by andrewg on Sun 4th May 2008 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Shame ..."
andrewg
Member since:
2005-07-06

AMD still beats Intel in the PPC market segment. But thats going to disapear soon when Intel releases chips with Quickpath.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080430-ps3s-cell-cpu-tops-hi...

Sun has an excellent offering in a number of areas. For webservers, databases and file servers the T1000, and T2000 are ahead of anything else especially in terms of performance per Watt but in general any application where you need a lot of threads. With AMD they have a competitive HPC offering.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Shame ...
by segedunum on Sun 4th May 2008 15:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Shame ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

For webservers, databases and file servers the T1000, and T2000 are ahead of anything else especially in terms of performance per Watt

Such metrics are pretty meaningless overall. All CPU makers now, including AMD and Intel, are talking about putting more cores on a chip and doing more in terms of parallel applications and threading (corner cases for performance improvements really) when people really want to do a task twice the size in half the time and get more through - and the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there. In the seven years since I seriously looked at Linux/x86 and Solaris/SPARC head-to-head, 4370 pystones/sec on an UltraSPARC versus 17,543 pystones/sec on a 1.4GHz Athlon was a pretty big no brainer, and that's why lots of academic institutions in particular jumped off. I don't see that the situation has improved.

Backing yourself into the 'performance per watt' bracket is a very tight and expensive niche:

http://www.imorphous.com/2006/08/17/evaluating-suns-sun-fire-t1000-...
http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/08/15/sun-fire-coolthreads-t1000-...
http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/08/15/sun-fire-coolthreads-t1000-...

Punchline:

http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/08/15/sun-fire-coolthreads-t1000-...

It's not even close. Some of the comments are the funniest thing about it.

Even worse, all of the benchmarks that Sun throws around for these things themselves require some fairly specific configuring of certain software on Solaris, and recompiling in Forte or Sun Compiler Studio (whatever it's called now) as Sun reps have been telling you for years whenever a gcc query has popped up. Quite frankly, a lot of people decided that it all wasn't worth the hassle years ago.

I don't know why Sun continues to sell SPARC in this market segment, and they've been getting burnt for some time now. It gets eaten by any x86-64 machine in terms of performance, which Sun sell anyway, it doesn't rake in any real energy savings versus the competition and it's significantly more expensive.

Edited 2008-05-04 15:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Shame ...
by StaubSaugerNZ on Sun 4th May 2008 19:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Shame ..."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


Even worse, all of the benchmarks that Sun throws around for these things themselves require some fairly specific configuring of certain software on Solaris, and recompiling in Forte or Sun Compiler Studio (whatever it's called now) as Sun reps have been telling you for years whenever a gcc query has popped up. Quite frankly, a lot of people decided that it all wasn't worth the hassle years ago.


In my experience Sun gear beats x86 on I/O across the backplane, not on raw processing power anymore. Also Sun's C compiler was (still is?) a factor of two faster than gcc on the same hardware (e450 with four Sparc), due to the very highly optimised math libraries Sun had made. For scientific work the Sun gear was extremely performant (although still far too expensive). Sun gear was also great as it failed very rarely compared to generic x86 stuff - which means something if you need reliability and don't have the room to do a Google (deploy large numbers of x86 boxen).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Shame ...
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 00:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Shame ..."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07


Such metrics are pretty meaningless overall. All CPU makers now, including AMD and Intel, are talking about putting more cores on a chip and doing more in terms of parallel applications and threading (corner cases for performance improvements really) when people really want to do a task twice the size in half the time and get more through - and the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there. In the seven years since I seriously looked at Linux/x86 and Solaris/SPARC head-to-head, 4370 pystones/sec on an UltraSPARC versus 17,543 pystones/sec on a 1.4GHz Athlon was a pretty big no brainer, and that's why lots of academic institutions in particular jumped off. I don't see that the situation has improved.


Your ignorance is astounding.

Lets just look at raw performance here, both systems in the following configuration cost almost the same:

HP ProLiant DL580 G5
Intel Xeon X7350 Processor 2933MHz
16 cores, 4 chips, 4 cores/chip
SPECweb2005 = 40046
SPECweb2005_Banking = 71104
SPECweb2005_Ecommerce = 55552
SPECweb2005_Support = 36032

http://www.spec.org/web2005/results/res2007q4/web2005-20071203-0010...

Sun SPARC Enterprise T5220
Sun UltraSPARC T2 1400Mhz
8 cores, 1 chip, 8 cores/chip (8 threads/core)
SPECweb2005 = 41847
SPECweb2005_Banking = 70000
SPECweb2005_Ecommerce = 58000
SPECweb2005_Support = 40000

http://www.spec.org/web2005/results/res2008q2/web2005-20080408-0010...

Oh look! a single 8 core 1.4 GHz SPARC system is better than a 16 core 2.9 GHz Xeon System in raw performance.

In performance per watt the Xeon box will look like a joke. Each of the Xeons in that box take 130 Ws so 4x130 is 520 Watts for the cpus alone. The UltraSPARC on the other hand consumes 95 watts normal max 123 Watts.

Why does an Intel based system need 5x the power and 4x the cpus to produce worse results than a single UltraSPARC chip?

Doesn't look like your ignorant statement " the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there."

BTW Academic institutions are back. http://hpcvl.org/hardware/victoria-falls.html

"1. What is the cluster?
We are installing a new compute cluster that is based on Sun SPARC Enterprise T5140 Servers. At the start, about half of these servers are available, one login node called vflogin0 and the compute nodes named vf0001.... We will add the other nodes as testing and configuration work is completed, for a total of 78.

Each of these nodes includes two 1.2 Ghz UltraSparc T2+ chips. Each of these chips has 8 compute cores, and each core is capable of Chip Multi Threading with 8 hardware threads. This means that each of the nodes is capable of working simultaneously on up to 128 threads. Once fully installed, the cluster, called "Victoria Falls" will be able to process almost 10,000 threads."

Edited 2008-05-05 00:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1