Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Mar 2009 11:48 UTC, submitted by PLan
In the News In a move that would certainly shake up the computer industry quite a bit, IBM is reportedly in talks with Sun Microsystems about the possibility of IBM acquiring Sun. Sun is going through hard times at the moment, and has been actively looking for someone to be acquired by.
Thread beginning with comment 354393
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Will OpenSolaris survive?
by dvzt on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Will OpenSolaris survive?"
dvzt
Member since:
2008-10-23

I'm not entirely sure why you're talking about 'cores'


Because there is difference between a single core-cpu and multi-core one. OS sees multiple virtual processors.

but if it's actually SMP systems you're talking about (it can't be anything else)


I'm talking about NUMA.

Trust me, it's been done and people are running stuff with an awful lot more than 32 'cores' in them. Have been for years. To post links would be fruitless and would merely insult your ability to use Google. If that's beyond you however then SGI have been doing the really big stuff, and that's with kit with >= 1024 CPUs in them. They're enormous:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117580267612045&w=2

Certainly at the time that that thread was posted Solaris had never ran on anything like a 1024 CPU system.


A server and supercomputer are two very diferent things. Supercomputers are usually used for simulations and data processing, whereas servers run tradional stuff like applications and databases. Server's OS usually has quite difficult task of managing hundreds of processes competing for same resources like disk, memory and network, but a supercomputer just needs to do maths and that's it. One process on each cpu is a very likely setup. If an OS runs on a supercomputer it proves absolutely nothing. People put Linux on supercomputers because it's free and easily customizable.

To top it off, Solaris doesn't do RCU locking either:

http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html


Interresting link, but since I never heared of it, it's probably not so huge.

Linux not scalable? Solaris more scalable? More 'solid'? I Wouldn't call it FUD. It's just outright desperation,


Not FUD, not desperation, but a fact. Now it's time for me to ask you, where have you been living? Linux is just a low-cost OS for a low cost, low end servers (x86). Take Sun Fire M9000, that's 64 4-core, 8 thread cpus, i.e. OS sees 512 virtual cpus. Corporations run their mission critical stuff like Oracle databases on it. You don't see anything like that with Linux, ever. Besides, for a server availability is usually more important, because if your applications don't work, employees can't do their jobs and you loose money. If your supercomputer goes down, you maybe won't finish your scientific calculations this week - no big deal, you'll get it next week.
Seriously, where have you been hiding? All the long-time sysadmins don't even take Linux seriously.

Linux solid? You call an OS with no stable DDI solid? Take VxVM for example. It has at least dozen different kernel module packages for different kernel versions. That's a laugh! No other OS (including Windows) needs that. You call OS with multiple incompatible versions solid? And I could go on...

but hey, that's why Sun are in trouble.


The cause of their problem lies with bad marketing, but I'm not going to discuss that.

"I could tell you stories from experience how "unbrekable" Oracle Linux is on 8 core AMD server.

Dunno. There's umpteen people doing it, so maybe it's just you?
"

It's not me, it's people from oracle who were doing the implementation as part of a normal paid project. I can't think of anyone more competent.

I could tell you many stories about Solaris's exceptionally buggy drivers,


Why not? Every piece of software encouters bugs.

many of them IDE drivers that Sun is only now finding out about by using ZFS as a debugging tool,


You have IDE drives in your server? Wow.

how difficult it is to get software actually installed on Solaris


How? I never had problems, so maybe it's just you.

However, if you chose Oracle Linux then you probably don't know what you're doing anyway so it's all academic really.


I'm not the decision maker here. It's true, our IT architects failed this time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"Seriously, where have you [Segedunum] been hiding? All the long-time sysadmins don't even take Linux seriously."

Look, this self contradictory, very selective, Segedunum also states that VirtualBox is equally stable, or more stable, than VMware. If he can state that weird thing, he can as well state that Linux is more stable than Solaris and AIX, or "the moon is made of cheese".

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Because there is difference between a single core-cpu and multi-core one. OS sees multiple virtual processors.

Yes. They're called SMP systems regardless of whether they use cores in one processor or multiple processors. The distinction makes no difference to the OS or its scalability.

I'm talking about NUMA.

No you're not. You don't know what you're talking about.

A server and supercomputer are two very diferent things.

No they're not. You wanted to try and throw a blanket statement over Linux's scalability and you've been shown to be wrong.

Interresting link, but since I never heared of it, it's probably not so huge.

Yes, because you don't know what you're talking about. You profess to cast doubt on Linux's scalibility where SMP is concerned without knowing you're talking about regarding SMP.

Linux is just a low-cost OS for a low cost, low end servers (x86).......Seriously, where have you been hiding? All the long-time sysadmins don't even take Linux seriously.

Sun has been saying that for ten years, and has resulted in this article about takeover rumours. It obviously hasn't worked because it isn't true. Deal with it.

Edited 2009-03-22 15:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

"Because there is difference between a single core-cpu and multi-core one. OS sees multiple virtual processors.

Yes. They're called SMP systems regardless of whether they use cores in one processor or multiple processors. The distinction makes no difference to the OS or its scalability.

I'm talking about NUMA.

No you're not. You don't know what you're talking about.
"

I proved and explained my opinion, I think you should try to do the same (if you can), instead of just doing bold statements. Maybe you should try to read about the topic, because you are the one, who doesn't know, what he is talking about.
http://lse.sourceforge.net/numa/faq/index.html#numa_v_smp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Uniform_Memory_Access

"A server and supercomputer are two very diferent things.

No they're not. You wanted to try and throw a blanket statement over Linux's scalability and you've been shown to be wrong.
"

No I wasn't. You didn't come up with any arguments at all, while I clearly explained the differences.

"Interresting link, but since I never heared of it, it's probably not so huge.

Yes, because you don't know what you're talking about. You profess to cast doubt on Linux's scalibility where SMP is concerned without knowing you're talking about regarding SMP.
"

Again, no proof/arguments.

"Linux is just a low-cost OS for a low cost, low end servers (x86).......Seriously, where have you been hiding? All the long-time sysadmins don't even take Linux seriously.

Sun has been saying that for ten years, and has resulted in this article about takeover rumours. It obviously hasn't worked because it isn't true. Deal with it.
" [/q]

I never heared anything official regarding Linux from Sun, maybe some remarks from McNealy when he was a CEO, but that's not interresting.
If Sun gets bought, it will just prove their marketing staff sucks.
Anyway it is true, that Linux is a low-end (server) OS and some success with small x86 servers proves nothing about its quality, not to mention scalability. Again, you are just making claims whithout giving any evidence, while ignoring what I wrote. Trying to be constructive with you is obivously a waste of time.

Reply Parent Score: 1