Sun Microsystems’ new Software Express program is alive and kicking with the company delivering a rewritten TCP/IP stack for Solaris that is meant to prepare customers for faster networking technology.
Sun Gives Glimpse of Revised Solaris TCP/IP Stack
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“We worked hard on efficiency, and we now measure, at a given network workload on identical x86 hardware, we use 30 percent less CPU than Linux”
I don’t have a problem with them showing how superior they are
( I am a Solaris sysadmin, after all) but how come I never see them tout better numbers than Windows or HP-UX.
not that I don’t believe the 30% remark, but compared to what kernel version of Linux? 2.6 I hear has an async networking stack which outa help. Interesting stuff.
Solaris still expanding the distance to Linux and competitors and now that their price range is cut down quite a lot, I guess Solaris is “the” server OS at least in TCO and power!
Solaris still expanding the distance to Linux and competitors and now that their price range is cut down quite a lot, I guess Solaris is “the” server OS at least in TCO and power!
Also, when one takes into the complete package, Solaris x86 + their whole server software line (including Oracle), it works out cheaper than Linux and Windows. One would be crazy to over look Solaris as a viable alternative to Windows and Linux.
If I was SUN, I would be chasing after all of SCO’s remaining (if there are any) customers. Free application porting and competitive upgrade policy would basically put SCO into bottomless pit.
Btw, I had a look at their software sales and from what I see, SUN could easily kill of their SPARC line, start offering Opteron Solaris servers and they would make a lot more money with lower over heads and cost.
If their SPARC business was profitable then sure, but they don’t have the volume because their hardware currently sucks big rocks. People can push it which ever way they please but when you have AIX and x86 servers loaded with Solaris beating Solaris SPARC servers, the most logical thing would be to ask whether SPARC as a future and whether they’re flogging a dead horse by continuing its (SPARC) development.
It is only because Linux is gaining popularity. They need to show Linux is good and catching up, but where way ahead. I guess that is what they are trying to show.
Doesn’t Sun usually jab at windows. I guess it all depends on the weather
My thoughts exactly! I don’t understand SUN. They push linux on there customers yet take every opportunity to tell everyone how great Solaris is compaired to linux.
As a Solaris admin i am also interested in how this new TCP/IP Stack compairs to HP-UX and AIX. Since i would not consider linux x86 as a replacement to my SUN Sparc servers.
Since i would not consider linux x86 as a replacement to my SUN Sparc servers.
Why not view Solaris x86 as a replacement for Windows or even Solaris SPARC? When Solaris for Opteron is released, why run Solaris SPARC which performs worse than a similar priced x86 server.
Linux + 30% more money on hardware < Solaris
“It is only because Linux is gaining popularity. They need to show Linux is good and catching up, but where way ahead. I guess that is what they are trying to show.”
Typical Linux zealot. Couldn’t resist pouting and complaining when there is something another operating system does better than their precious Linux.
“Typical Linux zealot. Couldn’t resist pouting and complaining when there is something another operating system does better than their precious Linux. ”
Oops… Sorry. Misread the comment before I posted. Too early in the morning, and haven’t had any coffee yet.
Linux + 30% more money on hardware < Solaris
Solaris x86 + Dell PowerEdge server = cheaper than Linux + Dell PowerEdge server.
Lets start chucking on things of real value like DB servers, directory server, messenging etc etc. Whilst the Linux server costs go to the moon, then to mars then out to Pluto, Solaris x86 plus the whole stack, $100 per employee.
Anyone who is deploying Linux servers today when such an opportunity exists much either be a manager who has been sucked into the Linux hype or some sort of IT related person who thinks he is hot-shyte but in actual fact, he knows less than the average MCSE.
Solaris is great!
However I still have a problem with solaris which is the same I have with Windows. It is only made by one company! If Sun raises the price on the next release which contains better drivers and bug fixes, I am locked in. If Redhat raises its prices, I can switch to Suse, mandrake or even Debian without changing to much in the configuration.
Solaris has its place. To the best of my knowledge it still scales better than Linux (including 2.6). This is great for large Monolith Databases. I don’t see Solaris deing soon nor Linux. However I think Sun does need a better Linux strategy.
However I still have a problem with solaris which is the same I have with Windows. It is only made by one company! If Sun raises the price on the next release which contains better drivers and bug fixes, I am locked in. If Redhat raises its prices, I can switch to Suse, mandrake or even Debian without changing to much in the configuration.
1) Solaris is UNIX 98, hence, there is NO VENDOR LOCK IN. READ AND REPEAT. Linux, apart from a few niggling bits ‘n pieces is POSIX and UNIX 98’ish compliant.
2) Solaris has come down from the thosands down to a few hundred Australian dollars. Compare that to Windows which has remained virtually static in relation to the price drops we have seen in the PC world. Before the most expensive part used to be the CPU then followed by the monitor, now the most expensive part is an OEM copy of Windows.
3) Solaris is LSB 1.2 compliant, if your application conforms to that, it should recompile with minimum pain and suffering on Solaris.
Solaris has its place. To the best of my knowledge it still scales better than Linux (including 2.6). This is great for large Monolith Databases. I don’t see Solaris deing soon nor Linux. However I think Sun does need a better Linux strategy.
Well, considering that Linux’s mains strength is the desktop and need I remind people that the *ONLY* company visibly pushing Linux as a replacement for Windows on the desktop is SUN, I don’t see SUN suddenly setting in the west.
They’ve got a contract with Teltra already to deploy 34,000 instances of Java Desktop System and Java Enterprise System. Crunch those numbers and both the customer and SUN come out in a win-win situation.
Here is a good Solaris x86 article in regards to the future of Solaris x86.
http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3093001
People may scream, “WOW! HP and Linux”. How about seeing reality, put a HP consultant in a room and the first thing they will push is Windows, no matter what you requirements are. They’re a Microsoft fanboy now and will remain a Microsoft fanboy in 20 years time.
Atleast with SUN Microsystems they’re open and honest; Linux on the desktop and Solaris x86/SPARC on the server. That is their jingle, that is what they sell. Compare that to the two face stratergy that HP and IBM push. One week they’re in love with Linux and the next they’re walking hand ‘n hand with Microsoft claiming that Windows is the future.
Where is their direction? Atleast with SUN you know they’re a UNIX company through and through. By hell or high water, unlike IBM and HP, they’re not going to sell you down the river to Microsoft and they’re going to stick by you if you choose their product.
It’s great for pretty BIG machines but is terrible for smaller ones. If you’re going with boxes that are >8-16 procs, choose SUN. If 8-way or less is what you need, choose something else.
If you use only single or dual processors,Linux, FreeBSD, or even Windows would be a better choice.
Which one of the abovementioned trio you choose depends on whether the box is single or dual and what it’s being used for .
However, SUN really should stop making pokes at Linux and concentrate on Windows. Other than that, I think it is great that they are improving their biggest asset, their UNIX Operating System. But, If it beats other systems repeatedly in I/O, or they have better CPU utilization, or they have a faster TCP/IP stack – they should compare them with only the MOST CURRENT versions of all Operating Systems they are competing with. Unless they can beat nearly all of them in everything, they shouldn’t post their results. When they can post the results of such a test, then it would hold a lot more water than, “btw…it is faster than Linux”.
When they target Linux, it just makes them look petty and ridiculuous. They are obviously intimidated by Linux, but proving that point by constantly deriding Linux just makes them look insecure about Solaris x86. They should work hard to correct that imbalance, and then show exactly how Solaris competes with ALL other major x86 platforms (indlucing FreeBSD, etc.), in various areas (TCP, I/O, CPU, memory, latency, etc) This would tell their customers that they are at the top of their game, rather than just “wishing” or “praying” it to be so.
Help me understand: Linux has been portrayed as immensely superior to all other closed-source operating systems, because the paradigm of OSS development is inherently superior.
But comparing a superior OS to Linux is “petty and ridicolous”? This seems utterly hypocritical to me. Do you not think this is hypocritical? Now really, how can Linux ever fail when supported by such powers of hypocrisy?
However, SUN really should stop making pokes at Linux and concentrate on Windows. Other than that, I think it is great that they are improving their biggest asset, their UNIX Operating System. But, If it beats other systems repeatedly in I/O, or they have better CPU utilization, or they have a faster TCP/IP stack – they should compare them with only the MOST CURRENT versions of all Operating Systems they are competing with. Unless they can beat nearly all of them in everything, they shouldn’t post their results. When they can post the results of such a test, then it would hold a lot more water than, “btw…it is faster than Linux”.
When they target Linux, it just makes them look petty and ridiculuous. They are obviously intimidated by Linux, but proving that point by constantly deriding Linux just makes them look insecure about Solaris x86. They should work hard to correct that imbalance, and then show exactly how Solaris competes with ALL other major x86 platforms (indlucing FreeBSD, etc.), in various areas (TCP, I/O, CPU, memory, latency, etc) This would tell their customers that they are at the top of their game, rather than just “wishing” or “praying” it to be so.
IMHO, SUN should be aiming Solaris x86 at those who run Windows servers but are too conservative to go with Linux.
The strange part is, on their website, all of the boasting and comparisions are made in relation to how well Solaris x86 performs vs. Windows.
If they improve the speed, hardware compatibility and software availability; 12000 software titles for Solaris SPARC and only 1000 for x86. If SUN can prove and gain that valuable customer base then the software titles will come.
What they should be doing is do what I suggested in the above paragraph then really work to make Opteron on par with their big irons and push Opteron + Solaris as a competitive solution over Itanium/Windows/HP-UX or Power5/AIX.
Imagine an 8 way NUMA equiped Opteron machine with the ability to install up to 64GIG of memory using off the shelf ECC DDR memory modules. The number of people who would jump onto that bandwagon would be HUGE. SUN would finally have a CPU/System that can compete performance/price wise with x86, Itanium and PowerX series.
“”We call on all Muslims and Iraqis … beware of working with the American forces. … Whoever works with them is an infidel,” said the speaker in the tape.”
I disagree completely with that statement! take for example the last company i worked for. Which was recently bought by Comcast
The head quarters environment consisted of HP-UX servers, SUN Sparc Servers and Alpha servers (that we phased out and replaced with HP Super domes, SUN couldn’t compete) and a huge windows environment. Never in the 4 years that i was there was a single UNIX server replaced by a Microsoft anything server. If a windows project needed to be scaled it went either the HP-UX environment or the Solaris Sparc environment. Behold SUNs true competitors! other UNIX platforms wow go figure! Windows doesn’t compete with UNIX platforms on a large scale. The NT admins would laugh at the suggestion of running Oracle on windows. The UNIX SA’s would laugh at the suggestion of running mail in the UNIX environment. Linux was specifically banned from the network! There are clear roles for operating systems in large organizations where the big money is at. They rarely cross pollinate. This is where SUN needs to compete instead of fiddling around with linux.
The above quote should read.
However, SUN really should stop making pokes at Linux and concentrate on Windows.
may be Windows and the others aren’t good enough, i guess
(i’m just kidding)
How exactly each OS is developed (OSS, or proprietary) should be irrelevant when it comes to the quality of value of a software application (that is if your choice of OS isn’t a religious or moral issue). OSS code isn’t inherently superior to proprietary code. Really the only thing that matters is the quality of the code, now how that quality is accomplished.
When I say comparing Solaris to Linux is ridiculous or silly, it isn’t a comment that is meant to be derisive or submissive of the quality of OSS code or Linux kernel code. What is ridiculous is measuring Solaris only against Linux operating systems when they have had bad press regarding this. They have also not one any friend Linux zealots when they stay friendly with SCO. Administrators that are Linux zealots are usually new to UNIX and therefore have the ability to instigate the most change, but they are also colored by prejudice towards the only UNIXish OS they know.
When they compare Solaris x86 to Linux repeatedly, and continually state that Linux isn’t ready as a server operating system, it can only be injurious to Linux admirers (true or not). Linux is seen as superior to Solaris as a desktop solution by SUN, infact SUN is stating that Linux’s strength is in its broad hardware and software support – something that is absolutely essential for a desktop environment to be successful. The core problem with targeting Linux in specific is, they are seen as targeting Linux while at the same time trying to promote it. They need to make customers understand that SUN *loves* Linux on the desktop. They also need customers to understand that Solaris x86 has been developed towards a server operating system. When sun compares Linux to Solaris x86 they imply that Linux is competitive with Solaris as a server Operating System. Clarification of their Linux strategy is a must.
SUN must avoid further alienation of Linux users, they should let those users know that they are willing to support Linux. Additionally, they should also give a full accounting of those features in Solaris x86 which differentiate it from other UNIX operating systems and Windows operating systems. Then customers could choose a server that best suites their needs with facts presented to them by SUN. They would also know what advantages Solaris x86 has over FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, Unixware, etc.
Regarding Windows – I understand that many UNIX administrators would sooner swallow a few cyanide pills than install Microsoft Windows – however, when you have x86 hardware your choices come down to Windows and now Linux for most IT shops. Not because those are the only choices, rather because those are the “safe” chioces for decision makers in IT management (which are usually less savvy and much more egotistical.) Those choices are based upon what they have heard from their vendors whilst on a golf course, what they have read in trade magazines, or what they have seen on Super Bowl commercials.
That is why Windows needs to be compared to Solaris along with Linux, because that is what most CIOs understand. I also feel that SUN should be comparing their products to all of their competitors products, if they truly believe they have the best operating system, than it will become very obvious when they look at a truthful product comparison.
Also, on why Windows should be compared along with Linux and other x86 operating systems. Microsoft is being touted as a UNIX replacement for large data centers. It is currently the belief of many individuals that the Windows OS seems to be a “replacement” or “migration” solution to get rid of that crufty UNIX. HP and IBM have both embraced Windows in a big way for servers. (Wintell) Dell has also been running promotions about UNIX migrations to x86 hardware and Microsoft Windows 2003. Many IT publications have heavily recommended Windows for its “ease of use”, “power and performance”, and “compatability”, after all everyone writes applications for Microsoft Widnows.
So is Microsoft Windows really so irrelevant that you think it can simply be ignored? Perhaps it *should* be ignored, but that is an entirely different argument.
(sorry about grammatical errors above)
Here is an example of Unisys, pushing hard for a system with 32 x86 Intel CPUs and Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition. http://www.unisys.com/products/es7000__servers/hardware/jet__blue.h…
Regarding Windows – I understand that many UNIX administrators would sooner swallow a few cyanide pills than install Microsoft Windows – however, when you have x86 hardware your choices come down to Windows and now Linux for most IT shops. Not because those are the only choices, rather because those are the “safe” chioces for decision makers in IT management (which are usually less savvy and much more egotistical.) Those choices are based upon what they have heard from their vendors whilst on a golf course, what they have read in trade magazines, or what they have seen on Super Bowl commercials.
Many Windows admins would rather swallow a few cyanide tablets than install Linux esp with all its indeosycracies that occur such as dependencies, if you rely on a binary driver and your distro updates the kernel, you’re effectly screwed, not all parts of the kernel are finally grained; NFS would be a module that comes to mind which scales crappily.
Solaris x86 should be aimed at those who want to run UNIX instead of Windows but have always had the pre-determined idea that UNIX means expensive. SUN needs to PROVE that UNIX on the x86 is a cost effective replacement for Windows and easy to administer. Once they convince them by demontrating their new licensing scheme; Solaris + the whole server software stack for $100 per-employee, I think people will question why they’re paying x number of licenses for Windows, then x number of licenses for exchange and x number of licenses for something else.
As for the Java Desktop Environment, they need to find out what large corporate users use, approach these software companies and pay for the porting of the application to the Java Desktop System. They can scream about taking over the desktop till the cows come home but until corporate users get the applications they need on the Java Desktop Environment, businesses will stick with Windows.
CooCooCaChoo, does SUN pay you to spew the crap you do, or do you do so on your on accord? Why are you so Brainwashed? Yeah, we all know linux sucks. Yeah, we all know linux can’t scale well. Yeah, we all know HP, IBM and Windows are evil. Yeah, we all know linux is more expensive than Solaris is. Yeah, we all know Linux is bad for servers. Yeah, we all know Linux isn’t flexible. Blah…blah…blah. Yeah, we all know SUN loves Linux. Yeah, we all know Solaris is as portable as Linux is and even more portable. Blah…blah…blah Yeah, what else is new?
Has anyone ever claimed that Solaris is more portable then Linux? I don’t recall ever reading that. How portable is Solaris? I’ve read that the Sparc and x86 versions share alot of code and that little is platform specific, but isn’t that also how Linux is? Neither are as portable as NetBSD. 😉
I actually agree almost entirely, Linux distributions are difficult to administer. Lately however, many administrators are probably coming to realize (after patching their Windows servers repeatedly for the last two months) that Linux does have certain advantages, even if consistent binary compatability and simple gui administration is not one of them.
It seems funny that everyone keeps running migration campaigns ads (SUN, IBM, HP) without really explaining their products. Are they scared that CIOs won’t understand? Are they supposed to rely on name recognition alone? At least when you see new cars for sale they attempt to tell you why you should fork over a bundle of cash on their product. Linux is living on name recognition alone. You could show Joe average a box with DOS 6.22 on it and tell them that it was Linux and they would think it was really cool!!
I don’t understand why SUN doesn’t advertise the strengths of their software more fervently. Not just it accomplishes this, or it does that for marketing, or “Sue in accounting now looks good thanks to our cool server technology.” Why don’t they have ads that show huge server farms operating with Solaris and explain that they can handle a billion web transactions per minute and what that means to their customers – no wait, or that they can support huge clusters that run databases that can hold a billion medical records. Explain what Trusted Solaris means and what it means for the those billion medical records. They could have commercials for small business that shows their few servers running reliably in a back room and everyone forgot they were there. Wouldn’t this go further in cementing the idea that Solaris is THE server platform of choice. If the CIOs understand the strengths of SUN over Microsoft, then maybe they will purchase SUN over Microsoft.
They should also fully evaluate their Solaris offerings and truly show its strengths and weaknesses against other operating systems and products and make certain that it can withstand being laid bare.
A bit of honesty can go a long way in convincing a customer that you aren’t just blowing smoke and positioning mirrors. If they can comparatively show the strengths against all other major operating systems than they would sell a lot of network administrators on Solaris x86. Just saying “Linux is bad” or “Microsoft is expensive” or “HP-UX is not good because of HPs UNIX strategy” is not going to cut it. Rhetoric is not going to win out over well crafted documents which honestly show a products strengths and weaknesses in real world tests, performance benchmarks, comprehensive studies, etc.
I know, never show weaknesses a product, however an honest presentation of a product makes people feel at ease with the decisions they make. They don’t have to wonder what you left out, or if they are going to regret the decisions they make later on. If you have a truly good product, then you should sell it based on the merits of that product, not by showing only the positive aspects of your product and only the negative aspects of their competitors. Just a thought.
SUN really need to market their products not only to CIOs but to the admins in the trenches as well. Their software solution for business needs to be heard as soon as possible and to a wide range of people. If they sit around and wait for people to suddenly realize that SUN is still awake then they are never going to even get past the starting line.
Neither are as portable as NetBSD. 😉
HUZAHHH!
CooCooCaChoo, does SUN pay you to spew the crap you do, or do you do so on your on accord? Why are you so Brainwashed? Yeah, we all know linux sucks. Yeah, we all know linux can’t scale well. Yeah, we all know HP, IBM and Windows are evil. Yeah, we all know linux is more expensive than Solaris is. Yeah, we all know Linux is bad for servers. Yeah, we all know Linux isn’t flexible. Blah…blah…blah. Yeah, we all know SUN loves Linux. Yeah, we all know Solaris is as portable as Linux is and even more portable. Blah…blah…blah Yeah, what else is new?
Show me one thing HP and IBM have done apart from duplicating an opensource effort. Where is IBM and their Linux desktop statergy? why is HP so willing to jump on board and be so pro-Windows even though according to some Linux fanboys they’re pro-linux?
Where is HP’s middleware? heap, non-existant; result? you’re put at the mercy of IBM.
How about pulling back the blinds and seeing reality. IBM and HP don’t give a toss about Linux, it is mearly a vehicle to sell their over priced “services” to the end customer under the illusion that they’re speaking to a systems expert when in reality, they’ve mearly got a sales spin-doctor sitting opposit them.
As I said previous, put an HP or IBM consultant in a room and I’ll put money on it, the first thing they’ll suggest will be an Intel based server running Windows.
Thats the problem with you linux fanboys, you’re starting to believe your own hype and lies. You are actually starting to believe the hype and spin IBM and HP are putting on their so-called “Linux effort”. Tell me, why don’t we see Lotus Smart Suite or Lotus Notes available for Linux? why don’t we see Websphere IDE available? how about Rational? or many of their other software titles?
When IBM and HP start delivering on their hype rather than paying lip service to emotionally driven Linux fanboys, then I’ll start believing Linux is a viable solution on the server.
I think OSS code is superior to proprietary code because I have access to the source code of OSS applications. I don’t have access to the source code of proprietary software. This makes that software inferior, to me, because I can not make proprietary software work for me as dynamicly and form-fitting as I can make OSS software work for me. I’m a professional, not some child who needs to be told what to do and how to do it. I already know what I’m doing, I just hope someone else already did most of the work for me in software and didn’t do a piss poor job of it. Or else I’ll have to write my own.
Its also very nice when it costs you nothing and you have the freedom to redistribute the software.
“I think OSS code is superior to proprietary code because I have access to the source code of OSS applications. I don’t have access to the source code of proprietary software. This makes that software inferior, to me, because I can not make proprietary software work for me as dynamicly and form-fitting as I can make OSS software work for me. I’m a professional, not some child who needs to be told what to do and how to do it. I already know what I’m doing, I just hope someone else already did most of the work for me in software and didn’t do a piss poor job of it. Or else I’ll have to write my own. ”
Really, after having seen propietary software and also looked at linux code I honestly think most of the linux code is written rather shabily and positively unreadable with a bazillion MACROs and with really silly bugs that would have been easily caught in a code review at any company.
There is really no excuse for dereferncing a pointer to intialize a variable and after the defintions checking for the same null pointer and returning error, that’s a panic waiting to happen. or for the ACPI code to create a table of blacklisted toshiba laptop models and invariably blacklisting every laptop with a toshiba vendor id.
Well your point is taken about the fact that I know about these bugs because I had access to source. But the point I am making is that just because it is open source it is not inherently superior and free of stupid bugs. The proponents of opensource would have you believe that it is bug free and better because a million eyes will look at it and fix these bugs. But the reality is that such silly and stupid bugs do still exist in 2.4 . Many if not all of these would have never passed a code review at a major software company.
Most companies have very stict QA cycles. I know that Sun is very particular about QA and code reviews (know engineers at sun) becuase sun just can’t afford to have a panic at a large customer sight because of stupid bugs. I am sure the same is true for IBM and HP.
But the linux developers have nothing to lose if a silly bug in linux crashes a major installations. IBM, HP take the slack. So what is the incentive for them to have strict procedures for review. Hence silly bugs in the kernel.
By the way I think freebsd is beautifully coded.
> I’ve read that the Sparc and x86 versions share alot of code and that little is platform specific, but isn’t that also how Linux is?
just hard to say.
since when we talkin about ‘Solaris’, it is entirely OS, a system.
but for ‘Linux’, we just not sure whether it’s a whole GNU/Linux system or just a Linux kernel.
just hard to say.
since when we talkin about ‘Solaris’, it is entirely OS, a system.
but for ‘Linux’, we just not sure whether it’s a whole GNU/Linux system or just a Linux kernel.
I may be wrong, however, IIRC, there are two parts to the kernel when it boots, there is the platform specificate part which is loaded then there is the platform independent part; the rest of the kernel, which is shared between SPARC and x86.
In regards to the libraries for Solaris, you can have 32bit and 64bit libraries sitting on the system thus requiring no thunking to get things running; in Windows, win32 => win64 translation.