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 354411
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Will OpenSolaris survive?
by Kebabbert on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Will OpenSolaris survive?"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

SEGEDUNUM

What is the problem with you?

I (and others) have told you several times that ZFS doesnt need huge amounts of GB to run. ZFS runs fine on 1GB RAM (Ive run ZFS on 1GB for over a year). And still, in every post about ZFS you tell people that ZFS needs huge amounts of RAM, several GB. And you tell people that ZFS end-to-end data integrity is not a big deal, even though it protects against silent corruption. The point of using ZFS is it's end-to-end data integrity. All the rest is just icing on the cake.

(Ive heard that FreeBSD implementation of ZFS takes much RAM. But that is not proof of ZFS needing much RAM. That is proof that FreeBSD implementation needs much RAM. Not ZFS. Easy to understand the distinction, if you have learned to draw correct conclusions)

We told you that several times, and you just dont listen. You dont get it. Or, choose not to understand. Very selective. Whenever you hear something bad about ZFS or a SUN product, it sticks. When you hear opposite, you just ignore it. Very selective.

Or, is it that you can not keep two contradicting facts in your mind, at the same time? You have to choose between one of them? And then you choose randomly? Or you keep the fact negative to ZFS and SUN? Your L2 cache only fit one piece of fact?





Regarding that SGI machine with Linux. I dont know how many times I have to tell you. I explained this for you recently, and I will have to explain again. I suspect.

Linux on SGI runs a modified custom made kernel. It is not stock Linux. I can modify MS-DOS and run on it several CPUs. BUT THAT IS NOT SCALABILITY, IT IS MODIFIABILITY! But Solaris kernel is the same that runs on machines from Intel Atom to huge servers. THAT is scalability. There are no different versions of Solaris kernel.

But well, I guess there was just a chance epsilon big that you got that. I promise, you will continue to state that Linux is scalable. It is not. If unmodified Linux would run on small devices up to huge servers and to large clusters, then Linux would be scalable. Otherwise, I can modify MS-DOS and call it scalable, using the same reasoning as you do. But noone would call MS-DOS scalable, would they? But, hey, "Linux is scalable", but MS-DOS is not???? Whats the difference? Clusters dont count as big iron.

There are some contradiction here. I see that, others see that. You dont see that.

Edited 2009-03-22 09:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

What is the problem with you?

What's wrong with you lot? Sun's the one wanting to be sold here. There is obviously sometjhing wrong and I'm afraid you just have a real mental issue over it.

I (and others) have told you several times that ZFS doesnt need huge amounts of GB to run. ZFS runs fine on 1GB RAM (Ive run ZFS on 1GB for over a year).

I'm afraid that has absolutely zilch to do with what I talked about in this thread, and has has been explained to you numpties on umpteen occasions about ZFS, just because you've ran it on your dinky little laptop for a year it proves jack. The BSD developers have certainly found that it will eat memory unbounded relative to the workload you throw at it. The end.

And still, in every post about ZFS.....

I never talked abiut ZFS anywhere, this thread was never about ZFS other than using it as a debugging tool for Solaris's buggy IDE drivers.

I feel for you when the inevitable happens and Sun is taken over. Obviously many people have a pretty big emotional attachment and it will hit them hard.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"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."

Ok, if you think that a supercomputer also are used as an ordinary server, be free to believe so. Others, more educated people, know that a supercomputer are used for number crunching. And as such, a supercomputer has a totally different architecture. It is tailored for high throughput of numbers. Reliability is not that crucial. To serve many users with for instance thin clients are not that important. I would like you to post links to one supercomputer were there are lots of users logged in doing ordinary office work. You see, supercomputers only run specialized software, they never run ordinary Office applications. When I programmed our Cray for numerical tasks, I used MPI and C++. I never saw someone using our Cray for Office work. I dont know of any stock exchange using Cray or another supercomputer. They are run on servers with high reliability as highest priority.

Seriously, I think you should try to learn some about IT before you post anything about things you have no idea about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer
"They [supercomputers] tend to be specialized for certain types of computation, usually numerical calculations, and perform poorly at more general computing tasks.
...
Their I/O systems tend to be designed to support high bandwidth, with latency less of an issue, because supercomputers are not used for transaction processing.
...
most modern supercomputers are now highly-tuned computer clusters using commodity processors combined with custom interconnects."

You are just too much. People tell you have things are, and show links, and still you refuse to believe anything. No evidence is good enough for you.


Also, when you say that SUN's VirtualBox is an alternative to VMware in production, you reveal your ignorance.


And that thing about ZFS. I wanted to show that it doesnt matter what we say, nothing can make you change your mind. No evidence in the world suffices. Ive told you that FreeBSD's ZFS implementation may require 2-3 GB of RAM just to boot up. I dont know about FreeBSD + ZFS. But Solaris implementation of ZFS doesnt require that RAM, it runs well on 1GB RAM. People has run ZFS on 512MB RAM without problems. Other people has told you this as well. But why should you listen to us? Even if the main architect behind ZFS and FreeBSD developers posted here and told you this, you wouldnt believe them. That, I know about you. I promise that even if you installed OpenSolaris on a machine with 1GB RAM and tried out ZFS and you saw ZFS worked fine, you wouldnt change your opionion about ZFS requiring much RAM.


Have you heard about something called Bull headed?

Reply Parent Score: 2