Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Sep 2013 22:04 UTC, submitted by garyd
General Development

ZFS is the world's most advanced filesystem, in active development for over a decade. Recent development has continued in the open, and OpenZFS is the new formal name for this open community of developers, users, and companies improving, using, and building on ZFS. Founded by members of the Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and illumos communities, including Matt Ahrens, one of the two original authors of ZFS, the OpenZFS community brings together over a hundred software developers from these platforms.

ZFS plays a major role in Solaris, of course, but beyond that, has it found other major homes? In fact, now that we're at it, how is Solaris doing anyway?

Thread beginning with comment 572598
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Solaris is doing well
by arsa on Fri 20th Sep 2013 08:28 UTC in reply to "Solaris is doing well"
arsa
Member since:
2009-10-26

You seem to have some insight into Oracle businees plans which is not just a mere forecast. That's fine and well. What is not fine and well is stating "GNU/Linux is for low-end only" and "GNU/Linux scalability is a myth".

Oracle presents its Engineered Systems as the best machine they have. When I remember the way Oracle is marketing this machine (OpenWorld keynotes, "Oracle Magazine" and, oh dear, trailers for IronMan movies) it's clear they consider it a big deal. Description certainly seem impressive: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/engineered-systems/index.html
Should we also describe what operating systems they run on?
- Exadata, Database appliance, Exalytics, Big data appliance, Network applications platform run on Oracle Linux
- Exalogic can either run on Oracle Linux or Solaris
- Supercluster and ZFS storage applicance run on Solaris
- Virtual compute applicance is running Oracle VM but I don't know much about it
It appears that if it weren't for the facts that SPARC can be properly used in Solaris only and ZFS storage OS was already nicely built, then GNU/Linux is the only choice.

Now, the question for you. You are certainly aware of the expandibility of Engineered Systems. Can you explain how come GNU/Linux is not scalable? Were you able to deduce that from Oracle's behaviour?

Once again, I am all for the success of Solaris, but I'm even more against false claims over GNU/Linux.
All the best.

Edited 2013-09-20 08:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Solaris is doing well
by Kebabbert on Fri 20th Sep 2013 11:58 in reply to "RE: Solaris is doing well"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

You seem to have some insight into Oracle businees plans which is not just a mere forecast. That's fine and well. What is not fine and well is stating "GNU/Linux is for low-end only" and "GNU/Linux scalability is a myth".

Larry Ellison said that Linux is for lowend in an official interview. Read here for Oracle's official stand on Linux vs Solaris:
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/1389769/Linux-is-n...


Oracle presents its Engineered Systems as the best machine they have. When I remember the way Oracle is marketing this machine ... Now, the question for you. You are certainly aware of the expandibility of Engineered Systems. Can you explain how come GNU/Linux is not scalable? Were you able to deduce that from Oracle's behaviour?

Oracle's engineered systems are really good, and they surely run Linux and/or Solaris. However, these systems are small. For instance the ExaData has only a few cpus. The ExaLogic is a cluster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Exalogic
And as well all know, Linux scales excellent in clusters. No one has ever denied that.

The question is if Linux scales on a single fat server. And Linux does not scale on such a SMP server, because there have never existed such a Linux server with 16 or 32 cpus for sale. There are Linux clusters for sale, with 1000s of cores, but no 16/32 cpu Linux server for sale. So, if there does not exist any 32 socket Linux servers, how can Linux scale well on SMP servers? They dont even exist, how can anyone even benchmark and assess the Linux scalability?

So, the Oracle engineered systems running Linux are either tiny (up to 8 sockets) or they are a cluster. The Oracle Engineered systems also exist in a modified Solaris version, and they are called "Supercluster". The engineered systems were developed before Oracle bought Sun, and that is the main reason they mostly run Linux. "Supercluster the fastest engineered system at Oracle":
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/servers/sparc/sup...

The new Oracle M6 server will have more than 32 sockets, it will have 96 sockets. And it will run Solaris, not Linux. Because Linux can not scale beyond 8-sockets in a single fat server (SMP).


Once again, I am all for the success of Solaris, but I'm even more against false claims over GNU/Linux.
All the best.

These are not false claims. There have never existed a single fat Linux server with more than 8 cpus for sale. The largest Linux server ever sold, has 8 cpus, and is just a normal HP, DELL, IBM server x86. I suggest you google for larger Linux servers, you will not find any. Thus, I speak true. The proof I speak true is simple: no one has ever sold larger Linux servers than 8 cpus. If you find a larger Linux server, then I am wrong. You will not even find benchmarks on a large Linux server. It is like IBM, they never release benchmarks on their large IBM Mainframes, because Mainframes have really slow cpus, much slower than x86 cpus. The IBM POWER7 is a good cpu, though.

Linux scales excellent in clusters, up to 10.000s of cores and maybe even beyond that.

Linux scales very bad in SMP servers, up to 8 sockets. HP tried to compile Linux to their big 64-socket Unix server, and Linux failed miserably. Linux had ~40% cpu utilization, which means most cpus were idle when running on a 64 cpu server. That is quite bad. Google for "HP Big Tux Linux server" for more information.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Solaris is doing well
by Alfman on Fri 20th Sep 2013 14:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Solaris is doing well"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Kebabbert,

"Larry Ellison said that Linux is for lowend in an official interview. Read here for Oracle's official stand on Linux vs Solaris:"

I was unable to find the interview in your link (membership required?) Of course he would say that though, he's biased. Bill Gates would have said the same thing regarding windows. They are not really going to admit that their products can be replaced by much cheaper linux alternatives, even if it were true. I hope you understand why asking Larry Ellison is meaningless. Consider his claim here:

http://www.x-drivers.com/news/hardware/4900.html
"Oracle claimed a legion of record-breaking benchmark performances for the T4-4. Ellison repeatedly compared the performance of the T4-based Sparc SuperCluster to IBM's Power lineā€”and the Power 795 in particular. A one-rack T4 SuperCluster 'is twice as fast as IBM's fastest computer, at half the cost,' he claimed."

When in fact... "But the benchmarks that Oracle cited were mostly internal ones. Those may carry some weight for many Oracle customers, but there were only two that really hint at the T4-4's performance beyond software that has been tuned for that processor. One of those third-party benchmarks was the TPC-H benchmark for a 1,000 GB load, in which the T4-4 beat the IBM Power 780 and Itanium-based HP Superdome 2 on price/performance, raw performance, and throughput."

and

"The T4 is still outperformed on Oracle Database 11g by HP's BladeSystem RAC configuration running Oracle Linux, and edged out by HP's Proliant DL980 G7 running Microsoft SQL Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 both on price performance and raw power. Both are x86 systems."

I'm not sure whether the additional cores with Sparc are actually beneficial. I just wasn't able to find much information about it.


"The question is if Linux scales on a single fat server. And Linux does not scale on such a SMP server, because there have never existed such a Linux server with 16 or 32 cpus for sale. There are Linux clusters for sale, with 1000s of cores, but no 16/32 cpu Linux server for sale. So, if there does not exist any 32 socket Linux servers, how can Linux scale well on SMP servers? They dont even exist, how can anyone even benchmark and assess the Linux scalability? "


Do you know if it's *really* a linux problem instead of an x86 SMP scalability problem? I honestly don't think x86 can scale efficiently beyond 8 cores under any OS. My understanding is that linux will run on the same Sparc architectures that Solaris does:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE5Nzc

Do you have a benchmark of an apples to apples comparison between solaris and linux on the same processors (ignoring that such processors are not being sold with linux)?


Mind you solaris *could* be better than linux for high end deployments. I'm genuinely curious about it, and if you have any evidence (benchmarks & case studies) that would be very informative to me.

For that matter, I'm very curious about the scalability of 64 core shared memory systems in general regardless of OS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it would scale badly unless it were NUMA (or it had so much cache that it could effectively be used as NUMA).

It's fun to talk to others who are passionate about this stuff!

Edited 2013-09-20 15:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Solaris is doing well
by phoenix on Fri 20th Sep 2013 20:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Solaris is doing well"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The question is if Linux scales on a single fat server. And Linux does not scale on such a SMP server, because there have never existed such a Linux server with 16 or 32 cpus for sale.


Do you mean 16 or 32 individual CPU sockets on a single motherboard? Or do you mean 16 or 32 individual CPU cores spread across 4 (or more) physical CPUs in separate physical sockets?

If you mean the former, sure, I've never heard of one of those, running any OS. They probably exist, I've just never seen anything online or IRL with more than 4 physical CPU sockets.

If you mean the latter, you're talking out your arse. ;) We have 16 core servers running Linux right here in our data centre (Debian Linux + KVM running on a dual-socket mobo with 8 cores per socket). And SuperMicro makes motherboards that support 4 physical sockets, with 16 cores per socket (AMD, so no hyperthreading crap) for a total of 48 CPU cores ... all fully supported by Linux.

Perhaps you should clarify which you mean (physical CPUs or CPU cores).

Reply Parent Score: 3