Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Nov 2008 21:38 UTC, submitted by pantheraleo
Oracle and SUN The world hasn't been kind to Sun for quite a while now, but with the economic downturn, things are getting worse. Sun announced today that it will be laying off 18% of its workforce, or about 6000 people. In addition, it was announced that Sun's software chief Rich Green has resigned for reasons that were not stated, although as part of Sun's reorganization and cost cutting efforts, many departments are being merged, and the software division is being restructured and reorganized.
Thread beginning with comment 337544
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Sun performances...
by Kebabbert on Tue 18th Nov 2008 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sun performances..."
Member since:

Ok, if you dont trust official benchmarks about Niagara on SAP's and Oracle's web sites, then there is nothing I can do. We are "discussing" why it would be incompetent to not even consider Niagara for a particular work load if it is 10 times faster. But if you think that the benchmarks and testimonies are a lie, then there is nothing to discuss about. I wonder, what kind of environment are you used to? Lies are quite common, I understand?

I think you should seriously consider study some higher mathematics. Then you maybe could draw conclusions correctly. No mathematician would draw such flawed conclusions as you do.

Wrong conclusion 1:
If web sites still functions perfectly, if not better, with far lesser Niagara boxes, then... what does that imply? Is everything about the Niagara performance a lie, or could it be true? Hmmm... Let me think... Hmmm... Nope, I cant figure the answer out. Can someone else than Segedunum help me? What could the correct answer be? If it is a big lie that you can migrate lots of servers to few Niagara, how can the companies still function after an migration? Hmmm... Difficult question, I must say.

What happens IF the benchmarks that are to be good to be true, were true? Would Segedunum be shocked then?

Wrong conclusion 2:
Segedunum has heard that ZFS requires a lot of memory on FreeBSD to even start/work/whatever. Does that imply that ZFS on Solaris requires a lot of memory? Hmmm... Let me see... Hmmm... Nope. I can not figure that out either. Can someone else than Segedunum help me?

Segedunum has also heard from several different people that ZFS on Solaris doesnt require much memory, but them sources are not to be trusted. Can I spot a slight bias somewhere? Maybe not?

Wrong conclusion 3:
The Niagara boxes are worthless because the Niagaras will not be able to handle a different task with different work load.

Hmmm... Let me think. If... SUN makes it very clear that these Niagara excels at some tasks, but not on other tasks... Does that mean that I can throw what ever task I want at the Niagara boxes? It does mean that, doesnt it? Or? Now I am unsure. This was too difficult for me also.

If I have a knife, that is made for one purpose: cutting, should I expect the knife to handle other tasks as well? Or should I just see the knife as one of many tools? One tool for cutting, one tool for hammering, etc? Nah, I dont know. This was too difficult for me. Or, maybe if I have specialized tools, they excel at a single particular task and I should have multi tools in my repertoire? One specialized tool is 10 times better than a general tool at a particular task? Does that make the specialized tool worthless? I guess it does? Hmmm... Here we see some deep thinking.

Wrong conclusion 4:
SUN doesnt succeed right now. That must imply that SUN's technology sucks and everything is a big lie, right?

Microsoft with admittedly bad technology succeeds very well. And MS is famous for having an excellent and aggressive sales division. So let me do some deep thinking again. If... MS sells best in the world, then their technology must be best in the world, right? And... as SUN doesnt sell too well, their technology must suck right? Ah, yes! I solved it! Yes, it must be so. Nevermind the battle between VHS and Betamax, where Betamax lost despite being better technology.

And besides, The Niagara boxes market share grow very rapid. Like 50% or more each year. There ARE customers wanting those. I wonder why if they suck so badly. So, wrong again, buddy.

I could go on and on, analyzing your earlier posts. But I have work to do. I am doing valuable work for my company. Segedunum, you are so clever man. I wish I had your brains. Where do you find all your bright ideas? They just pop up? *full of admiration*

I understand SUN employees banging away on IBM. I would do that also. Do you know why? Because IBM are stating things that are not really true. If IBM market division didnt exaggerate things, there would be no banging, I promise you. When IBM goes out and says false things, like their technology is best in the world and so - but an Niagara is many times faster at a fraction of the price, I would be pissed too.

Like, when IBM says that an lesser Mainframe consolidates 232 x86 servers. If you scrutinize that, it turns out that the x86 servers must be at 2-3% utilization and the mainframe is close to 100% utilization! And, you can emulate a mainframe on a laptop with "Hercules". An IBM Mainframe MIPS == 4 MHz x86. An 1000 IBM MIPS cpu is roughly equal to 4000GHz x86. And we read everywhere how fast these mainframes are. You can probable migrate one mainframe to one Niagara box. In fact, I think Ive read it somewhere. If I find the link I will post it here.

And still IBM refuses to publish benchmarks. If their technology were so good, why refuse? SUN publishes everything. SUN is clear with the weak points of Niagara, and doesnt try to hide that. Doesnt try to hide anything, like IBM does. If you have nothing good to come with, then you can try to fool everyone instead. That is the reason SUN people gets pissed off. If IBM would stop that, then there would be no SUN banging. Besides, Niagara is quite fast at number crunching also. 1.4 GHz is way faster than IBM Power6 at 4.7GHz. Funny.
In floating benchmarks, the Niagara is not that superior, but still it is fast.

I remember when Microsoft claimed that Windows TCO is lower than Linux TCO. When you scrutinize, it turned out that Linux was run on a very expensive IBM mainframe whereas Windows was run on a PC! If you do that, of course Windows is cheaper than Linux! Are you surprised if someone banged away at MS? But If MS stopped, then there would be no banging, I promise you.

Edited 2008-11-18 10:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Sun performances...
by Kebabbert on Tue 18th Nov 2008 12:18 in reply to "RE[5]: Sun performances..."
Kebabbert Member since:

Or I remember when IBM claimed that Power6 had tremendous bandwidth, 300GB/sec or so. When you scrutinized that claim, it turned out that IBM had added the band width in all components in the chip! The different caches plus other things. Maybe IBM doesnt know that, but a chip doesnt have greater bandwidth than the lowest number.

If there is a bottleneck on 10MB/sec, then the chip will have no greater band width than 10MB/sec. You can not add upp all the bandwidth in the different caches. If IBM stopped all these silly claims, then nobody would have anything to complain on IBM.

Seriously, I dont understand why SUN doesnt sell better. If I were a SUN sales man, I bet I would sell lots. I would turn the company.

Reply Parent Score: 2