Re: Performance increase is not goal of a replacement....
geez Allison, are your pants on fire, or are you sitting in a pool of water when you write this stuff?
"Power7 is a chip that can be 4,6 or 8 cores depending on the performance customers want" -- This is merely a way to sell the procs with broken cores. It is not a feature. You'd think that since IBM owns the fab they could do a better job.
"Power7 has the ability to run 1,2 or 4 threads per core on the fly depending" -- Very misleading. IBM shops must change the thread count based upon the load, and the system does not adjust to the load in a dynamic way (Like SPARC T4 does). This means you cannot have a mixed workload in one instance.
"thread swapping in supporting 8 "simultaneous" threads down from 16 which did not work well." -- Did not work well? It works for the applications it's intended for. That's like saying that a single 4-Core Power7 does not work well, when you use it for a high throughput application. Just plain silly. As far as the "simultaneous" threads argument. Oracle has 16 threads running simultaneously on T3 and 8 Running Simultaneously on T4. The "switching" you speak of is to handle cache misses on each core (which believe it or not, even IBM has a lot of!) I think even Kebabart could explain this to you if you are confused.
"Oracle has a roadmap with M-class systems which are really T-class and Sun engineers have not been able to build a >4 socket system since 2004." -- Um, the roadmaps we've all seen clearly show the M-Series going to a different chip than the T-Series, and to at least 16 sockets. You merely spout FUD, but cannot substantiate any of it.
I do understand a little why Oracle not reselling SPARC64 confuses you, as you come from IBM, where rewrites/recompiles of code between different versions of SW/HW is common, but Oracle/Sun have kept binary compatibility for decades. They've promised to do this moving forward as well.
"I am willing to bet their M system will have the same terrible interconnect as the X4800." -- I'll that that bet! The X4800 is X86. M-Series is SPARC. X4800 only goes up to 8-Sockets, while the M-Series, shown on the roadmap, shows at least 16-sockets.
"Oracle is not only glueless they are clueless." -- You've been told before, but glueless is actually a good thing in many respects, especially in serviceability, and had relatively little affect on performance. Of course, since IBM does not have an entereprise OS they can put on their comparable systems, they/you would see glueless as a bad thing (Linux does not have the RAS features to take advantage of the serviceability benefits).
"I would say Larry would get out of hardware all together but he is a stubborn little man." -- I haven't met Larry, so I'm not sure of his stature. I agree, however, that he is stubborn. He will not give up easily on high-end HW, like HP apparently is (now that's FUD!)
I'm really impressed with the rate of innovation in SPARC since Oracle took over. IBM should be very concerned. I don't think they will be able to keep up in the medium to long run at this rate of change. Of course, Oracle has kept all of their SPARC promises so far, but it will be interesting to see if they can keep them moving forward.