Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Apr 2009 19:54 UTC
General Unix Even though the old-world UNIX operating systems, like IRIX and HP-UX, have been steadily losing ground to Linux for a long time now, they do still get updated and improved. HP-UX 11i v3 is supposed to get update 4 tomorrow, with a host of new features that won't excite you if you're used to Linux, but they're still pretty useful for HP-UX users.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 40 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 358899
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by puenktchen on Thu 16th Apr 2009 20:53 UTC
Member since:

linux .. linux .. linux .. doesn't even run on many hp-servers. maybe because it doesn't scale well enough (don't kill me, it's just a guess. i don't know shit). for example, your options for the "HP Integrity Superdome with sx1000 chipset—64 processor/128 core server" are:

HP-UX 11i v3 and HP-UX 11i v2;
Microsoft® Windows® Server 2008 for Intel® Itanium®-based systems;
No Linux support
OpenVMS v8.3; OpenVMS v8.3-1H1

Reply Score: 3

by kragil on Thu 16th Apr 2009 21:01 in reply to "THIS NEWS ISN'T ABOUT LINUX"
kragil Member since:
dvzt Member since:

Yes, Linux is frequently used on supercomputers, because it's free and there is source code available so it can be modified to work with custom machines. What's your point?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Delgarde Member since:

The link on it's own isn't much of a demonstration of scalability, since while Linux makes up a huge proportion of those systems, it doesn't distinguish between massively parallel machines versus clusters of cheap hardware.

That said, they're there. Number #3 on the list is an SGI Altix box, apparently running SUSE. Number #6 is a an array of Sun hardware running CentOS. Number #9 is Cray hardware, again running SUSE. All three are massively parallel setups, all with 10000+ cores.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:

And how does massive clusters prove anything in the way of scalability? scalability is the ability to efficiently scale in a single image over a large number of processors. Although a lot of this is dependent on the quality of the code itself regarding the user space applications running - at the same time being able to detect 512 CPU's and then being able to spread a load efficiently over the whole thing is a different matter entirely.

As for HP-UX, the only people who are keeping it around are basically those who need the legacy support - apart from that there are very few 'new customers' whom one can point to who are purchasing HP-UX brand new for the first time (or upgrading their existing hardware without major consideration over moving the work to a Windows or Linux server).

I've always thought that the best course of action would be for HP and IBM to merge their operating systems with OpenSolaris and come up with a single UNIX specification that can rule them all - with the differentiating factor coming from the administration tools and the hardware sits underneath it all. I doubt it'll happen but I think it is the best way to counter Windows and the growth of Linux in the enterprise by at least coming up with a single common UNIX implementation which spans over x86/x86-64, SPARC, POWER and Itanium.

Reply Parent Score: 3

by akro on Thu 16th Apr 2009 21:19 in reply to "THIS NEWS ISN'T ABOUT LINUX"
akro Member since:

Uh it is to supported... you must be pulling from the mx2 modules which are no longer sold

RHEL 4 up to 128 cores and 2048GB RAM is supported...

Reply Parent Score: 2

by gustl on Sun 19th Apr 2009 17:37 in reply to "THIS NEWS ISN'T ABOUT LINUX"
gustl Member since:

Well, would not be too surprising to have a hardware which is custom made towards HP-UX which is NOT supported by Linux.
You need to write drivers for some of that stuff, and HP is not very deep into Linux.

The company I worked for had a HP Superdome replaced by a SGI Altix (with Linux), both of which worked fine.

HPUX for sure has it's merits, as has Linux. I once had the pleasure of having to work on a HPUX workstation with CDE on it as a desktop. While the HPUX Kernel was working approximately as stable as Linux (less stable than SGI IRIX), the CDE Desktop was amongst the worst, which means by far less usable and powerful than KDE or Gnome, and only slightly better than Windows. The only reason why it was better than Windows was virtual desktops.

Reply Parent Score: 3