“ Now, we’re beginning to hear about super-size Windows systems that live up to the high expectations set seven years ago. They include a 27-Terabyte data warehouse, a heavily trafficked Web site, and some of the world’s most widely used financial applications.” Read the report at InformationWeek.
Scaling up and out on Windows Server 2003
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Never thought i’d see the day. Good to see windows improving really.Was just plan sad seeing large scale severs running windows a few years ago.
I agree. More and more positive reactions on Windows in general are popping up. This is a good thing, and I hope our anti-MS friends dare to admit the progress being made
Windows is far form “there” yet, but hey, what OS is “there”?
Seem like beginning of the end for one of the Worlds Oldest OSes.
This is the same situation which Windows was in 2-3years ago, if you want uptime, you have to cluster, there is no way to avoid this. In the UNIX world, however, one can get a lovely SUN box, throw a bunch of server software on it and no have to worry about that.
Why worry about whether it is clustered vs vertical scaling? the fact is, clustering bring in complication which results in more staff needed, which means, higher running costs etc etc.
The day when one can purchase a 72way server with multi-core CPUs and run a whole organisation off the one system, THEN Microsoft has made progress, until then, they’ve mearly scratched the surface.
Windows in terms of reliability is still in the early UNIX days, one day they’ll get to a level they can be proud of, until then, keep trying to reach the high branch because you falls keep us UNIX admins amused each day when you drop (and hit every branch on the way down).
“Seem like beginning of the end for one of the Worlds Oldest OSes.” – Not likely. Linux and other unix operatingsystems reach new goals all the time.
Linux scales very good now. (Read the linuxworld URL)
Solaris 10 shows new and improved high end administration tools.
FreeBSD 5.x will be stable with new modern technology in a few months.
Linux is on top of the registered TPC-C tests (Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition on Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3)
Linux is on top of the registered TCP-H tests (IBM DB2 UDB 8.1 on Suse Linux Enterprise Server 8)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43722.htm?DE=1 – “Dissolving the Limits of Linux”
“NASA Ames Research Center recently installed an SGI Altix 3000 system that demonstrated 512 processors in a single system image – the largest Linux supercomputer of its kind ever created. By scaling in near-linear fashion to more processors than even some Linux enthusiasts thought possible, the NASA system was the first computer in history to break the 1 terabyte/second barrier on the STREAM Triad benchmark, an industry-standard measurement of memory bandwidth.”
“it credibly illustrates the Linux community’s ability to outpace proprietary solutions, and provides a proof-point of how far Linux can penetrate industry and science in particular.”
Windows was originally projected as a desktop OS for idiots. This is the reason why it is popular 🙂
Now, windows (in the server versions) are trying to copy several ideas from Unix and they are becoming more similar, so mimilar that I see no reason to change from tested OSes for a new and one-vendor OS.
But for me it is stupid change from Unix or linux to an operating system proprietary and made by one only software house. There are no way out if licenses change in the future or if you don’t be satisfied with it.
You can migrate from Solaris to HP-UX or AIX or other commercial Unix or even Linux or *BSDs without many problems because they are very similar and you can recicle many of your softwares and use the same administers without many retraining.
Use Windows in that big environments is no easy and then the “easy-administration” appeal has no sense here. You will need specialized people to administer your system.
I see Windows gaining market share in big environments only if M$ makes dumping, lowering much their prices (or giving for free) to convince people to change. They have much money to spend…
How many CPU’s per server can windows address? Two or 4, maybe 8? I don’t think any more than that, while the big iron addresses dozens, even hundreds of cpu’s per box.
Distributing programming power over a hundred pc’s when it could be handled with 2 boxen is lame. But what does Dell care? They’re only running business apps, not something that requires hardcore power, something like rendering an animated movie, such as pixar does. Once windows can compete there, then they have something to crow about, but until then it’s NO CONTEST!
I would hope that they’ve got hotmail running on windows by now!
Ummm, you do realize that they purchased Hotmail from another company, which like many other serious websites used FreeBSD. Microsoft has been in the process of migrating from FreeBSD to Windows ever since the purchase. That sort of migration just doesn’t happen overnite when we’re talking about the volume of servers used to run Hotmail, not to mention the proprietary software involved, and the fact that any downtime whatsoever is completely unacceptable.
And are they still using oracle internally oon the large databases?
I very honestly doubt that they make much use of Oracle internally. SQL Server is good enough(tm) and has been for quite some time. Granted no, SQL Server is no Oracle or DB2, but it is definitely more than capable enough for Microsoft’s needs.
Oh and by the way, I’m a die-hard open source, Linux, and FreeBSD fanatic so this isn’t just some Microsoft apologist talking. When you look objectively at the facts, Microsoft Windows isn’t quite as robust as a *nix, but with 2003 they’ve gotten a helluva lot closer. Uptimes, security, interoperability, and scalability are now quite comparable, if not slightly better than many flavors of *nix.
Maybe someday they’ll give us a few more of the things we need…a well documented and useful command line, less rebooting, making the GUI optional, and more verbose and useful error messages. I say this only because often the Network Admin isn’t given the choice as to the tools he must use. *Sigh* Even auto mechanics get to pick out their own tools.
Hi
Every comment that is reasonably critical of windows is under review now?. Windows is making progress from its origins as a wimpy insecure os but thats not saying much. For mission critical systems unix has always took the lead and there is more adoption of linux there because of the similarity more than anything else. It would take time to rearchitecture windows. Ms is trying to do that and will likely to release a product in late 2006 or early 2007.
Its good to see competition at work
Regards
Jess
Yes, because Apple doesn’t use Win2000 for their site here in the UK, and Linux/Unix (other than OSX) on other regional sites. I’m not picking on Apple BTW, just pointing out a the flaw in the guy’s drivel.
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition, can be licensed for 128-way systems, with each partition capable of supporting a maximum of 64 processors.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/datacenter/dcprogram.msp…
These are specially certified systems from Unisys, HP (Superdome), NEC, etc. Dell isn’t currently in this space.
High Performance Computing for Windows Server 2003
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/hpc/default.mspx
On Windows 2000, the site had grown to 104 dual-Pentium servers, nearly maxed out at 90% utilization, to handle Match.com’s traffic. The workload is now managed by 45 servers running at half capacity, which just goes to show that when it comes to scalable systems, the sheer number of servers is not always better. “These days, it’s unheard of for us to have to reboot the servers,” say Bardov.
What I want to know is if it was the same hardware they were using. I doubt that a switch from Win2000 to Win2003 would decrease the workload by about three quarters. The lack of information leads me to believe there is a little spin involved here.
Hi
Its traditional MS tactics to call every version below the latest one to be very bad compared to whats currently offered.
win 2003 doesnt really give any workload benefits over 2000 unless you make use of the specific features.
WinMe
one, either read the article
or two, for the sensible folks around here, dont pay attention to the plethora of trolls
win2k3 server as mentioned in that article is running on a 32 cpu machine made by unisys
datacenter server 2003 runs on up to 64 itanium 64bit cpus with 512gb of ram
up to 64 cpus on 32bit as well
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/sysreqs/defau…
hell windows doesnt control the mars landers so it must be crap!
hell windows doesnt power los alamos super computers studying particle physics so it must be crap!
windows, like unix or linux, does very well in certain spaces. get what you need for your solution.
and grow up too while you are at it.
Thank you, Eugenia, for this very positive news item. I really appreciate seeing some good news about Microsoft again.
so many years after NT4 was released. And don’t forget, most of the goodness that is windows nt/2000/xp/2003/whatever is due to the fact that IBM helped out on that codebase(OS/2…).
The biggest problem with Windows 2003 Server is that if anything gets screwed up with it’s DNS, then EVERYTHING is screwed up.
I was very disappointed with 2003 Server.
Windows was originally projected as a desktop OS for idiots. This is the reason why it is popular 🙂
Windows NT was never “projected” to be a desktop OS (for idiots or otherwise).
Now, windows (in the server versions) are trying to copy several ideas from Unix and they are becoming more similar, so mimilar that I see no reason to change from tested OSes for a new and one-vendor OS.
What are these ideas they are “copying” that are only present in unix ?
You can migrate from Solaris to HP-UX or AIX or other commercial Unix or even Linux or *BSDs without many problems because they are very similar and you can recicle many of your softwares and use the same administers without many retraining.
Sounds like you’ve never actually had to try it.
For something trivial, switching between unixes is reasonably trouble free. For anything serious, it’s nearly as much as a PITA as switching to Windows.
Use Windows in that big environments is no easy and then the “easy-administration” appeal has no sense here. You will need specialized people to administer your system.
Just because you need specialised people doesn’t mean it can’t be easy to use.
How many CPU’s per server can windows address? Two or 4, maybe 8? I don’t think any more than that, while the big iron addresses dozens, even hundreds of cpu’s per box.
It was a max of 32 CPUs back in the days of NT 3.x and 4.0. As others have posted, current enterprise versions will support 128 CPUs per box.
Of course, the whole *point* of the technology being talked about in this article is that it’s often more economical to have lots of cheap, dual or quad CPU machines instead of one or two 64 CPU monsters.
Distributing programming power over a hundred pc’s when it could be handled with 2 boxen is lame.
Not if it’s significantly cheaper.
Why do you think Sun are in so much trouble ? It’s because dirt-cheap clustered Linux boxes are *destroying* the market for massive, dozen-CPU Solaris machines.
But what does Dell care? They’re only running business apps, not something that requires hardcore power, something like rendering an animated movie, such as pixar does.
You do realise that places like Pixar use the same sort of clustering technology this article is talking about, right ? That they have lots and lots of small machines and not couple of great big ones ?
Not to mention those “business apps” are almost certainly putting more strain on the OS than a relatively simple task like a renderfarm does.
Once windows can compete there, then they have something to crow about, but until then it’s NO CONTEST!
There’s little reason to think it couldn’t.
For mission critical systems unix has always took the lead […]
Always ? Mission critical systems have been around for more than twenty-odd years, you know.
You probably won’t find many large organisations (banks, governments, etc) that have been relying on unix for their mission critical systems for more than ten years – if they even are now.
[…] and there is more adoption of linux there because of the similarity more than anything else.
Linux is popular because it runs on cheap & easy systems suitable for edge-computing and some non-critical processing like renderfarms or webserver farms.
It would take time to rearchitecture windows. Ms is trying to do that and will likely to release a product in late 2006 or early 2007.
There is not need to “rearchitect” Windows, nor is Microsoft doing it. They’re just doing the same typical, evolutionary development that every other OS developer does.
And don’t forget, most of the goodness that is windows nt/2000/xp/2003/whatever is due to the fact that IBM helped out on that codebase(OS/2…).
No, it isn’t. NT was worked on by Dave Cutler and Co who worked for Microsoft, not IBM.
That people have started appreciating stability of Windows. Microsoft has come a long way, they have done many mistakes in the past to make users pissed off of windows but they are realizing their mistakes and improving. Its nice to see that Linux is picking up the market, because competition is healthy for the industry. Without Linux in scene, Microsofot wouldn’t have been here in terms of reliability and stability where it is today.
Happy to see companies finally realizing that stability/performance and ease of use is the name of the game.
The only sad thing is that Windows and Linux can’t co-exist happily because they target the same market. But whoever is good will win at the end.
The biggest problem with Windows 2003 Server is that if anything gets screwed up with it’s DNS, then EVERYTHING is screwed up.
Uh, most OSes don’t deal particularly well with name resolution failure. Windows 2003 is hardly alone in that.
“Windows was originally projected as a desktop OS for idiots. This is the reason why it is popular :-)”
Linux has been positioned as an OS for people with an intense hatred of company’s who are successful.
I am sure this will get modded down unlike the persons post whom I am quoting and paraphrasing.
” It was a max of 32 CPUs back in the days of NT 3.x and 4.0. As others have posted, current enterprise versions will support 128 CPUs per box. ”
Thats bull, buying a version of Windows that can handle that many processors would cost someone to go bankrupt. You can download Debian and get that functionality for free. Windows cant beat free, its dying on the desktop and its a joke on Servers.
” Why do you think Sun are in so much trouble ? It’s because dirt-cheap clustered Linux boxes are *destroying* the market for massive, dozen-CPU Solaris machines ”
Thats right, in a year any company not running linux will be in trouble, Linux is the new standard and there is nothing that can even compare. More and more companies are dropping support for Windows and UNIX and pretty soon Microsoft will be in the same boat as Apple, having to produce software for their obsolete, virus ridden OS, and they will be the only ones producing software for Windows.
” You do realise that places like Pixar use the same sort of clustering technology this article is talking about, right ? That they have lots and lots of small machines and not couple of great big ones ?
Not to mention those “business apps” are almost certainly putting more strain on the OS than a relatively simple task like a renderfarm does. ”
There is nothing more intense than 3D graphics apps, business apps are a joke and Linux can spit out those business apps faster than any Windows cluster. Windows could never and will never handle 3D intense graphics software and any animator that would try it could never make his deadline.
Lol, you are trying too hard. I think you’re secretly a Windows troll trying to make Linux fans look bad. And if not, then that’s just sad. I’ve never seen a more incompetent defense of Linux than that.
Linux doesn’t suck. Windows is not crap. What the hell is wrong with that?!
Naturally I’m not that fond of MS, but Win 2003 really is an improvement across the board in performance and scalability. Although I recall even when Win NT 4.0 was released that “this is the release to kill Unix!” or “now we can scale like Unix!” (if not before then, every release will be “the one”) it would appear that, for real, this release can offer nearly Unix like scalability. Scalability means more then how many CPUs it can address too, btw. Scalability means taking an intense workload without falling over, or the ability to scale /down/ as well as up. (try running Linux or BSD on a first gen Pentium, and then Win 2003) Solaris can patch itself (the equivilant of a service pack) without a reboot, with hardware support it can support swapping CPUs n RAM while running, high end IBM machines are self-healing. MS, as well as Linux, still has a ways to go. But both are getting there. Yeah, even NT 4.0 could utilize 32 CPUs, but you got diminishing returns after 4 CPUs so almost no one used such machines. Hell even now such machines are rarely needed for anything at all, the vast majority do fine with 4 CPUs and under.
Sorry…Didn’t quote the poster. Was directed at “Gnome Lover”
Windows is crap, these people who run these computers must have at least 32 viruses per server. Linux is the future, Windows is dead, in 3 years Red Hat will buy Microsoft anyone who wants real high powered computing use Linux or UNIX. I personally disbelieve the article, because I know for a fact no one can get Windows to do anything high volume and if its true Dell would have gone bankrupt buying all those licenses. Windows will never be what it was and its tme for Bill Gates to move aside and let the pro’s handle it.
Microsoft actually getting more into a market that used to be standardized by UNIX, Linux is competition not the enemy and this is not a war I wish Linux zealots would quit trying to make it out like that. Microsoft has improved their products alot. One thing I disagree with in the article is the security thing, most IT directors sit and see what happens and speaking to my clients about their Windows deployments they are not concerned about it and I dont see any slowdown in Server 2003 adoption because of these “security” expert warnings.
Windows cant beat free, its dying on the desktop and its a joke on Servers.
On the desktop…give me a break….still having over 90% is not dying……move on linux baby.
Thats right, in a year any company not running linux will be in trouble, Linux is the new standard and there is nothing that can even compare. More and more companies are dropping support for Windows and UNIX and pretty soon Microsoft will be in the same boat as Apple, having to produce software for their obsolete, virus ridden OS, and they will be the only ones producing software for Windows.
Where do you get this new standard stuff from….do you live in a box….or are you just closed minder to only believe what you think? I really don’t think MS will be the only ones writting and supporting software for Windows…..oh…I forgot..maybe in your world.
There is nothing more intense than 3D graphics apps, business apps are a joke and Linux can spit out those business apps faster than any Windows cluster. Windows could never and will never handle 3D intense graphics software and any animator that would try it could never make his deadline.
Again…just totally untrue….I hope you realize people like you will not help Linux out in anyway……most people read comments like your and rather not deal with people like you and just get a bad impression on the entire community.
Don’t get me wrong….I like both Windows and Linux and have realized they both have their place….people like you should do the same thing…..until you do so…your nothing but an uneductaed linux whinner.
Your post has to be one of the most uniformed, ridiculously lame ones I’ve read in the past two years.
Must be hard to be that dumb.