buy new vs upgrade
[Sureo] "Why would they upgrade an old product rather than sell you a new one?"
Same reason people buy new memory or hard drive or cards for a PC.
Otherwise, they buy an Apple.
452 posts • joined 4 Aug 2008
[Sureo] "Why would they upgrade an old product rather than sell you a new one?"
Same reason people buy new memory or hard drive or cards for a PC.
Otherwise, they buy an Apple.
"Net Neutrality" effectively made it illegal to sell a higher Quality of Service Internet connection to a customer willing to pay an uplift while selling a lower QoS to people who wanted to pay less.
For the Third World, Net Neutrality had the potential to "lock out" the masses from Internet Access, by forcing higher prices, and ensure lower & poorer performance [QoS] for mission critical applications reaching back into the US (such as remote robotic surgeries) for the most vulnerable in societies.
The lifting of "Net Neutrality" brings opportunity to innovate:
- IoT can legally use lower reliability & lower cost links for telemetry, advancing science at a lower cost & broader international scope
- Scientific & Medical applications can use higher reliability flows, from an internet uplift, which is a FAR LOWER COST than dedicated "Fast Lane" international links, without the possibility of those links getting swamped by internet streaming movies
- prioritization of low bandwidth & latency insensitive flows can be sold with different pricing, to ensure safe & real-time transportation information to vehicles, without getting swamped by regular internet content.
Overall - the potential for ending Net Neutrality has the potential to bring vast technological change in the Third World, as well as in The First World... by ending the need for parallel networks, for the rich, and enforcing the swamped internet [with no QoS guarantees] for the masses.
I am glad "Net Neutrality" is being abolished, it will bring an end to the "Fast Lanes" solidified by the former American Administration... that physical fiber can now be consolidated into the rest of The Internet, merging more bandwidth for the masses in the U.S., as well as to the nations who connect to it!
Anon>> So the market for 16- or 32-socket servers are diminishing as x86 gets more powerful. And that is the problem.
Korev> No long ago if you needed 32 cores then you'd have to buy a 32 CPU server; these days a dual socket Intel server can give you the same core count.
2005 - Sun released a 32 vCPU processor... this was truly the beginning.
-- "Morrow says one of the difficulties MongoDB has encountered is figuring out Solaris' future, which he describes as “murky at best."
Solaris 11.4 will roll significant Solaris 12 features
-- That's a reference to Oracle's decision to bin Solaris 12 in favor of rolling updates to Solaris 11.3."
CI development is hardly a "bin" - no suffering through side-grades!
Anonymous> Wim Coekaerts has suddenly started actively tweeting about Linux on SPARC.
Linux on SPARC has been coming since 2010, at least… with Oracle hiring people to re-write Oracle VM Server for SPARC documentation to remove the exclusive Solaris support in 2015q4.
The real question is whether Solaris 11 is the Control and Service Domains or whether Oracle Linux is...
That is Solaris 11
>> "Better to have a Lead Acid battery system for your PV panels"
> How so?
Recycling... Lead Acid Batteries have been recycled quite easily for decades.
You buy batteries, you return them back to the same place you buy them.
They chunk 'em, float 'em, skim 'em, and make new batteries.
Newer batteries are constantly being invented and I am not convinced that the poisonous components are truly being completely recycled on a global basis. I wonder if they are just poisoning our land & water.
> My source tells me that these Engineered Solutions will be SPARC based.
With hardware crypto & decompression engines, could be a good choice!
There was an Oracle job posting some time back, asking for OVM for SPARC training course material to be re-written to support Linux on SPARC...
I wonder if this is the time for introduction?
I used Containers/Zones under Solaris for ~10 years... Zones/Containers are:
- Secure, based upon Trusted Solaris extensions, very well tested.
- Not really a Layer, OS Resource Controls make Container/Zone.
- Open Sourced from OpenSolaris, code was vigorously reviewed
Security is improved when Containers/Zones are:
- Deployed on ZFS, corrupted/injected disk blocks are automatically repaired.
- Deployed on ZFS, disk blocks in memory & disk are checksummed
- Deployed on ZFS, disk blocks in memory & disk can be encrypted
- Deployed on ZFS, encryption & correction from memory to external storage
- Presented on Read-Only file system, root in zone can not inject into binaries.
- Holding the Application, migrating a Container/Zone to a new Chassis automatically performs upgrade or downgrade of OS/Application, so only migration permissions are needed (not root in the Zone/Container.)
- Using network presented by Chassis, Zone can't change network to promiscuous mode.
- Running older OS's, since older OS services can be supplied by newer/supported Chassis Global Zone
Security is enhanced with Branded Zones/Containers for legacy OS's:
- Chassis DTrace supports runtime visibility to legacy branded OS's
- Chassis ZFS from Chassis will auto-correct disk blocks experiencing corruption
- ZFS encryption in Container/Zone reduces visibility to data from Chassis
- ZFS encryption in Container/Zone secures data from Chassis to Cloud
Various vendors tweeked Containers/Zones over the past decade to include:
- Containers for: Solaris 8, Solaris 9, Solaris 10, Linux variants
- Docker Support from Samsung/Joyent today and Oracle's roadmap
The Performance & Capability benefits of Containers/Zones are outstanding, never mind security. I deployed my first applications in Containers/Zones back ~2005 because of the cost benefit (cheaper to use Containers/Zones than physical servers and still cheaper than VMware.)
Programming VAX Macro was a dream...
Windows / ARM = WiRM
Rhymes with Squirm....
[DougS] Your argument is stupid and backwards
Anonymous just made a statement. Let's see your argument.
[DougS] If a company makes a lot of money, they aren't going to hire more people
So, if a company loses money or only makes a little money, they can hire more people?
That does not make much sense. I don't see a lot of poor people hiring others.
[DougS] If every town had three cable companies to choose from there would be a lot more people employed in the industry
Multiple competitors exist through media only, today. Wireless, satellite, cable, copper. In the past, there was only Government Telco. We effectively have what you are talking about - there are jobs in all these markets. All are delivering audio, internet, and video services.
Federal Government regulations discourages cable from competing with one another.
[DougS] If cable companies can't force people to pay $200/yr to rent their crappy boxes...
Cable companies are not forcing people to pay for the boxes, today. I had a friend who just ordered Cable Internet, about 2 months ago, and he bought his own box. He just does not get the maximum bandwidth that is available. You can buy cable modems at electronic stores or internet.
[DougS] If you think the FCC shouldn't set standards, why do we have LTE?
ISDN was a set standard, DSL ate it alive after de-regulation. Innovation is the reason the government political appointees should not create standards. Political Government Appointees should register standards, not dictate them. Free Government should be a neutral arbitrator, not a dictator. Government control & dictatorship breeds horrible conditions - look at Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Freedom breeds innovation.
[DougS] ... LTE... AT&T, Verizon... switch to a different phone... iPhone would never have been created... wouldn't license proprietary standard to other companies...
The iPhone was released with 2G network capabilities. The first phones were tied to AT&T. A new iPhone was created for Verizon due to frequencies leased by the company and different network standards. Other carriers followed with different iPhones for different frequencies & protocols. The iPhone was created, even through the technologies were different between the carriers - the carriers DID license them because AT&T made so much money eating the other carriers alive with an innovative product. Your argument is not really solid.
Back circa 2000, I had an internet capable phone with a screen. The difference was the decision by Apple to abandon the WAP standard and adopt other standards.
- - -
I am not sure where you are trying to go with your reasoning. Vendors come up with a product, partner with the carrier, and produce something to be sold. They have always done this.
I had some friends recently released from a set top box manufacturer. High product costs enable high-salary designers & software engineers. Product costs, at $200 a box, is too low for manufacturing in high cost regions.
With human capital costs in Mexico, Eastern Europe, and Asia at 1/5th U.S. costs - Federal Government should not be encouraging the migration of those jobs any faster than they will occur naturally. $1 for every star in the Milky Way Galaxy was added to U.S. employers recently - U.S. Jobs were the casualties.
The same problem exists in Europe and Japan. The way all these nations tax their people is obscene. Income tax on businesses and employees outsources jobs to lower cost regions. Every time government increases costs through regulation or laws, more jobs disappear.
Where will the next generation of innovators come from, when all the newly trained workers are elsewhere?
The irony is that people vote for their own joblessness. It is a crying shame.
Anonymous was not too far from the truth.
Character terminals were pretty universal. Tek brought graphics. AT&T brought 1Kx1K monitors where apps could be downloaded into the thin client over the serial channel, which could be upgraded to ethernet. They were not truly stateless.
The stateless Sun Workstations provided an amazing workplace environment. Pull the box off of the dock, take the MAC address down for inventory, place the MAC in the server, and it worked when broken out of the box onto a desktop. If the server is booted, everything just paused, and continued where it left off. It was truly stateless. Thousands of developers in a warehouse could be maintained by a part time system administrator. All required management software was bundled. Productivity software like multi-media mail, chat/IM, editing, news, etc. was all bundled. High-end desktop desktop publishing was available. Local disks were not required. Network bandwidth requirements were high and WAN was not feasible.
X Windows offered a great backwards & forwards protocol for thin client computing, it was far superior to dealing with PC's on the desktop, and was in competition to stateless workstations. Maintaining the X Server as the only application on the desktop was fabulous for desktop publishing, trouble ticketing, network & systems management, and web browsing. The protocol was too chatty for WAN connections. Attempts were made with LBX for better WAN performance, state saving for better statelessness, but it was not truly stateless.
The SunRay was a dream come true. It encapsulated both Statelessness and WAN. If the network disconnected, everything was just where it left off upon re-connection. Power-Cycle returned one to a lock screen. Clients lasted practically forever, with keyboards & mice requiring more maintenance. Performance was as fabulous as the server. Multiple web browsers would run for months without ever needing a restart or a crash. Audio & Video were supported. Extremely power efficient. I still use SunRays, even though Oracle eliminated them from their line-up.
I hope for a suitable stateless thin client, in the future. The PC is too thick. IOS was looking fairly stable, but I seem to have issues whenever I do an IOS upgrade now a days. Web Browsers are still somewhat stateful, way too complex, always in need of constant upgrades & patching.
The Netbook concept and Chromebook were good examples of t an internet client, but the software was too thick, making them become obsolete over time, when the hardware was still functional.
I think pervasive internet is offering a good opportunity for a convenient appliance.
Rotating Rust manufacturers must find a way to innovate out of this problem.
- Possibly push technology from IOPS (losing war with SSD) into Bandwidth & Capacity (to eat market share from Tape) may guarantee additional years.
- A marketing push for MAID with SSD cache for backup purposes may be a great market to push towards, giving Rotating Rust a practical engineering effort to invest into SSD technologies.
- As odd as it may sound, perhaps engineering larger diameter (but lighter) platters could increase capacity substantially to compete cost effectively with SSD manufacturers [building $1B fabs every time they need to shrink.] Once again, not to replace SSD's, but leveraging SSD's for cache.
- Also, perhaps a focus on long term storage: WORM for 10-20 years. This could give Rotating Rust a way to chew up ladder to supply solutions that traditionally higher level storage providers handle today.
- With The Internet expanding ever so quickly, it must be archived somehow, it will be archived, and government agencies are able to pay a premium since they merely tax more to get their income. With the explosion of IoT, there will be more traffic to be captured than ever before. Seldom accessed, forever stored.
- Integrated storage hierarchy systems, bundling higher amounts of RAM, Super-Capacitors, Batteries, Flash, Rotating Rust in the same case in a modular way. Target long-term storage, again. Perhaps with hot-swappable sub-components (Some efforts being seen on including batteries in consumer items may be a first-step in a long term effort.)
- Push towards higher availability solutions for enterprise servers (i.e. press a button in the front of an integrated Rotating Rust drive to temporarily disable flash to perform a hot-swap in the hard drive chassis, similar hot swap of a thin/long integrated battery that could be removed hot.) Remove innovation support requirements from server OEM's or OS vendors.
Rotating Rust has opportunities, but investment & diversification may prove to be challenging and disrupting to people above & below them in the storage hierarchy.
Within days of the FCC making it illegal to prioritize sensitive (i.e. voice, video) traffic, which could be dropped due to bandwidth hogging protocols (i.e. torrent, ftp, http) - a huge Obama donor decided to announce release their own internet video products.
Once again, Democratic President Obama used the power of his position to repay rich Big Business by raising the costs upon the poor people for their internet access... since the only option to optimizing traffic where enough bandwidth exists is building bigger infrastructure at the cost to everyone.
With Democratic President Obama advocating "pay lanes" with Federal Highway Funds all over the country, to soak the rich for convenience - this was a diametrically opposite result by the Schizophrenic President. It's just more Corporate Welfare, paid for by those struggling to remain out of poverty.
> Orascom (an Egyptian company) ... have fiber in Syria, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have any qualms about letting ISIS use their links.
The Egyptian government control by the Muslim Brotherhood disappeared with the last "bloodless" revolution, to the disdain of Democratic President Obama - that Islamic State alliance dissolved.
The Islamic State is basically "at war" with Egypt now, fighting in Sinai & elsewhere, blowing up stuff. If an Egyptian company grants access, the Egyptian Government has a self-preservation motivation to disrupt it.
> ISIS has been known to create fake non-profits and charities and I wouldn't put it past them to use one to purchase a bunch of Sat Phones and internet subscriptions.
Track them down, shut them down, throw people in jail, fine others, follow money payments, keep it up indefinitely. When terrorist sympathizers understand sympathizing can result in loss of homes & apartments (making housing payments for families from prison is tough) - resolution begins.
The application for decompression goes beyond straight Oracle RDBMS.
- Live migration of VM's (LDom's & Zones) between Hypervisors
- Speed up Open Source databases sitting on top of compressed ZFS filesystem
- Larger bandwidth of normal data communicating from a back-end system to a Cloud provider
- Reduced cost for syncronization between storage at diverse locations using hardware decompression
When compression/decompression is tied with hardware encryption/decryption - secure & cheap is hard to beat!
Solaris planned the compression/decompression prior the encryption/decryption engines in components like ZFS... so this has been getting done in software, for a long time. Nice to get a boost in CPU power AND get a higher percentage of that CPU back for application work!
"Oracle yesterday released its Big Data Preparation Cloud Service – Spark-based analytics..."
Net Neutrality may put a hurting on SIP trunks over the Internet.
"A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization."
Phone or Cable Company now have been given a legal way to drive Americans back to lucrative voice billing. All an ISP has to do is upgrade their Internet infrastructure slightly slower than forecasted large frame data usage until large packets/frames interferes with QoS needs of small voice (or video chat) packets. SIP over Internet and VoIP providers (Vonage, Magic Jack, etc.) will not have a legal option to purchase priority or QoS, users will flock to Carriers & Cable as quality QoS degrades, those companies may experience poor customer performance, and go out of business... current falling voice prices will stabilize & rise.
Phone and Cable now have a way to offer high-definition video (over a dedicated, non-internet channel) which Internet providers may find it impossible to compete with. Once again, the ISP merely has to choose not to upgrade their Internet infrastructure and only upgrade their own Video delivery infrastructure.
Video chat companies (like Microsoft and Apple) may not be able to provide a quality product, while the the ISP can provide their own "dedicated" non-internet channels! It feels like pre-internet ISDN networks all over again, maybe we'll get Video Phones like the old AT&T monopoly days!
Amazing feat of political engineering, at the highest levels of the government, immediately after a huge election disaster - to tilt the playing field against from SIP over Internet, VoIP over Internet, Video Chat over Internet, and Video over Internet providers. With Net Neutrality, there is no longer a legal way for QoS dependent service providers to "purchase" their way out of capacity constraints.
Capacity constraints WILL happen with 1080p, 4K, and 3D streaming! Hopefully that content will come soon, but now the new high-capacity content will most likely be guaranteed to occur over monopoly ISP providers, instead of by innovative small providers.
When the government makes it fiscally beneficial for ISP's to delay infrastructure upgrades to the competition, in order to make more money, and in order to put competition out of business - that can't be a good thing. The opportunities for consumer abuse and innovation suppression are endless.
I am only on page 7 of this 400 page document... not looking forward to the other "goodies". :-(
> Give each country its own unique 2 byte address prefix for additional connections once the IPv4 range is used up then additional values for large countries when their first prefix is near full.
Sounds elegant, with exception to cellular phones with internet connectivity, vehicles which drive across bondaries, phones & cars sold between countries, light bulbs & door locks inside the cars & airplanes & mobile homes crossing national boundaries, equipment on artificial satellites around the earth, equipment on The Moon, equipment on Mars, ships at sea, airplanes in flight, equipment on the surface of the ocean in international water, space probes floating to/outside the edges of the solar system, ip addressable key fobs for every lock on a every person's key ring, every smart component on an airplane checking into satellites, ISIS carving out new countries from old while killing off lots of formerly potentially used IPv6 address block holders along the way, etc.
Are the items I mentioned show-stoppers? Absolutely not. There are countless proprietary protocols, in conjunction to NAT, to network these devices today. I am merely suggesting that artificial boundaries associated with nation-states may not necessarily be the best way to handle address allocation because of the expansion of intelligent devices. I personally don't think it is a bad idea, but it may be "short-sighted", and complexity will grow as DNS does (which this article criticizes in some large quantity of words.)
One may suspect "Ivory Tower" engineers had discussed analogues to these possibilities. Once the IPv6 address space becomes universal - one might not expect it will not be long before all those proprietary ways of networking (and hiding under TCP/IP) of individual devices or device components will dissolve. NAT is only one such hiding mechanism. M2M not dependent upon IP will consolidate into IPv6... and those devices dwarf the number of people in the world.
This Gartner magic quadrant looks really out of left-field.
Where is Oracle/StorageTek?
Oracle/Sun had been doing dedup ZFS for about a decade and Oracle/Sun's StorageTek released deduplication back in 2008...
What happened to CommVault?
The Reg was wondering why others were not doing Tape DeDupe back in 2011, mentioning IBM and Quantum were theorizing at the time (yet these companies appeared in the Gartner list?)
CommVault have been recognized in Gartner as a backup leader for nearly a half-decade.
No haters please, just really curious...
"Seems to me Apple are recognising users really won't be interested in horizontal market general purpose smart watches."
Apple released an iPod Nano 6th generation in September 2010 with a 24 hour of battery life during constant music playback (as long as there was a full charge, no EQ enabled, and stock headphones were in use!)
It was sold for 2 years and people would buy an wrist band for it in order to turn it into a watch.
I knew students who would run around with these things in schools all day long, they eventually bought real iPod Touches and then bought iPhones... and these wrist-mountable units were discontinued 2 years later.
"For now wearables have to be focused on a real and enduring need. Health and fitness tracking is highly valued by those who do it."
One might suspect the iPod Nano 6g was the first widely circulated smart-watch commercial prototype... here we are, 2 years later, and Apple is thinking about another. I have friends with iPhones strapped to their arm during exercise, and they absolutely love how it measures speed, steps, mapping progress, etc.
I don't really know whether this device without a GPS and high-resolution display will be able to replace an iPhone. There will have to be something competitive included in an Apple Smart Watch that the iPhone does not offer and that a competitive mobile phone will not offer... I frankly don't know what an Apple Smart Watch can offer than an iPhone will not, even in fitness.
The article author writes, "The reforms came into force today, allowing millions of poor Americans access to low-cost, state-backed health insurance."
Millions of poor Americans already had government-backed health insurance for generations - it is called Medicaid.
Millians of poor Americans already had state-backed health insurance, offered on a state-by-state level, depending on where they choose to live, and how they choose to vote.
The first Federal Government funded Health Insurance plans for the "uninsurable" were offered many months ago. The subsidy funding "dried up" with weeks, and the plan was already closed to new participants. This exchange is for a class of people that were once considered "insurable".
The law actually compels employers (who did not get a waver by The President's appointees) to offer health insurance to full time employees. This has been forcing government, educational, and cost sensitive retail institutions to force employees to part-time status, cutting their wages.
The law actually compels non-poor people, through a tax penalty, to purchase health insurance, who might not otherwise have health insurance. This means, the people who used to be working middle class, but not poor enough for Medicaid, to be taxed at the end of the year, placing additional pressure on former middle-class families.
The law raises the cost of medical devices (i.e. splints, machines, etc.) consumed by people. This raises the cost of medical care for everyone.
Sure, there will be a subsidy for those families, but will it be the equivalent to the 25%-50% of the salary, that they lost due to The Affordable Health Insurance Act?
Sure, there will be a subsidy for some families, but will it be the equivalent of the taxes they will pay for the medical devices that they need in their treatment process?
The Federal Government "taking over" student loans and encouraging students to take out more loans for college/university, regardless of aptitude or likelihood of being able to complete their degree, was supposed to be a major source of (guaranteed) funding for the Affordable Health Care Act. Was this a reasonable thing to do?
The number of uninsured, in the United States, is projected by the Congressional Budget Office, to remain about the same after the law. Some people are asking, why all of this cost & effort, when there will be no-net-change in the people being covered?
The President exempted the Federal Government from the Affordable Care Act, which cut into a guaranteed funding source. It is illegal for Congress to pass a law, exempting themselves, but it is not corruption for Congress to pass a law and have the Executive Branch exempt them from it, drying up subsidy funding (tax) sources?
Over 50% of polled Americans disagree with Obamacare, many of them for may more reasons that above, but The Republicans taking the "populist" role may not be as politically expedient as they desire.
The writer suggests, "Republicans wanted to see a public healthcare scheme dubbed Obamacare delayed by at least a year - something the Democrats just wouldn't agree to"
ummm... not exactly...
Actually, aspects of the bill have already been delayed by the Democratic President, meaning President Obama is technically breaking the law, but the Democratic Senate have not impeached Democratic President Obama for not following the law (which the Democratic Senate penned.)
Ironically, the Democratic Senate and Democratic President Obama refused to pass the suggestion by the Republican House of Representatives, the proposed extension, which would allow The President off-the-hook for technically breaking the law. The legal "relaxation" of the law was rejected by the Democrats, wholesale, leaving President Obama legally liable, and allowing the government to be partially shut down!
Does the Democratic Senate want to follow up with articles of Impeachment, for every law item that has been illegally delayed by the President Obama, of their own political party? Will the media hold the U.S. President accountable, for the illegal delays instituted by the Democratically controlled Executive branch?
Honestly, this is beyond crazy! Why can't these people just do something according to the letter of the Law and their Constitution, instead of always doing things illegally?
If it was a Republican President, one might expect the EXACT SAME THING to play out: Republican House trying to pass a law to give their President legal wiggle-room, and a Democratic Senate trying to block it... but the Democratic Senate would already be moving to impeach the Republican President.
This comedy never ceases to amaze me!!!
> didn't even 3278 have graphics terminal support.
The SunRay was a 100% graphics terminal.
You can even use web browsers and watch YouTube on an original 1999 SunRay 1 units - today!
Try to watch a YouTube video on a 1999 era off-the-shelf PC, today, never mind an IBM 3278.
SunRay - very graphical, virus-free, low power, silent, solid-as-a-rock.
Once you set them up, they just run.
I have 3 on my desktop at the office and another at my home.
- at the office, all 3 run operation center displays, shut off the sleep functionality, and draw very little power
- at the home, the 1 goes to sleep, draws nearly no power (the UPS has a power meter) and when I strike a key, instantly appears with a login prompt, with a small jump in consumption on the UPS.
SunRay's enabled beautifully implemented architectures with very simple lifecycle support.
When Sun decided early on to create Servers and abandon Workstations, the SunRay line was separated too far away from Solaris. Oracle had an opportunity to fix this as well as a variety of other broken initiatives.
A SunRay GUI should have been built right into the "root" administrative consoles of Solaris Servers, instead of using install scripts as part of the SunRay Software. This lack built-in integration into the other product sets (i.e. Sun Solaris... and later Oracle Solaris & Oracle Linux) probably contributed to the demise of the SunRay.
The external PCIe ports that Thunderbolt offers is really awesome.
Thunderbolt is kind of like the eSATA solution for hard drives, but is far more flexible (i.e. extending the systems PCI bus, not just extending a low-end SATA storage bus) - and people pay $$$ for it.
Technology like I/O expansion cages was previously only available on higher-end systems, mid-range servers, and mainframes. Now, external bus cages can be attached (i.e. ExpressCard), left behind on a desktop as if the person has a desktop unit, but just pop out the Thunderbolt cable on the laptop when ready to go home. Great for audio, video, performance studios, traveling performance studios, etc. This is really pretty interesting technology!
Thunderbolt is pretty clearly not aimed at least-common-denominator computing - external I/O card cages, heavy MIDI cabling, large numbers of monitors, etc. with the ability to have a portable form-factor are not the norm.
Cables are expensive though, that is a bummer... but bidding on eBay starts at $0.99 for budget minded! :-)
Mad Mike --- Sun couldn't come up with anything intelligent around roadmaps (at least ones that stuck!!) Now, Oracle are doing the same.
It looks like the roadmaps from Sun are pretty much being completed by Oracle... and the Oracle roadmap appears to be getting completed.
While the in-fighting and apparent under-funding of Solaris (vs Oracle Linux) seems to be an interesting discussion (uncertain of the references), it seems pretty clear that the SPARC / Solaris road map has been executed upon very well over the past number of years.
This being said, being the fastest out of all the competition is nothing to sneeze at, especially if it was done on "the cheap"!
When IBM catches up with the Power 8 and Intel releases their 8 socket capable chip - it will make things more interesting. (Oh yes, you can make 8 or more socket Intel platforms, but they are very expensive, with a lot of latency to deal with... and Power 8 was on the roadmap to be released in less than a year, but I suspect it is unfortunately farther off than that.)
Oracle and Fujitsu have released some nice processors recently. It is good to see the competition return to the marketplace!
Single thread speed on a T5 S3 core is 30% faster than the previous T4 core...
Double the sockets per single glue-less chassis from 4 to 8...
Double the cores per single socket from 8 to 16...
Double the threads (vcpu's) per socket from 64 to 128...
Quad 10-Gigbit Ethernet copper twistet pair per chassis...
A single piece of T5 SPARC silicon (v.s. gluing together multi-chip modules)...
There is really nothing like this in the industry - truly ground-breaking.
This is really an amazing processor, an amazing platform!
(The M5 processor has me curious, what is the use-case for big-cache with fewer cores?)
> Vert.x could also eclipse the industry’s most recent best hope, Node.js
Node.js has an unfortunate & unhealthy dependance upon Google's [non-portable] V8 engine while Vert.x sits on Java. It is great that Node.js sits on Joyent cloud, but Vert.x has the potential to sit on more public & private clouds than Node.js can ever exist on.
swscrad> Sun Microsystems pretty much gave up its own chip development and server manufacturing a few years ago, letting development partner Fujitsu do all the heavy lifting
Not quite correct. T4 and T4 Servers release illustrates continued non-Fujitsu SPARC development.
The purchase of Afara Websystems facilitated continued the lower-end SPARC servers development.
apleszko, I prefer Solaris over Linux on SPARC - you are not the only one who prefers the binary compatibility.
Fujitsu seems to be taking more of an early Sun approach. Fujitsu's educational wins will foster a developer ecosystem on SPARC Linux. This is a good sign, since these investments will be in place for years with many thousands of students finding their familiarity with it.
This being said, it could be a different ecosystem in 8 more years.
Jesper posts, "if you state that your current hardware has 6 times the throughput of your previous generation, that doesn't mean that for one single application"
ZFS on Solaris on SPARC (M4 & T5) are not "one trick ponies" like the T1. Did you follow the link?
The need to move the RDBMS to the storage system is not required. Run ZFS, add a PCIe write cache, add a PCIe read cache, apply ZFS with hardware compression for I/O throughput , and ANY database will get massive read, write, and I/O acceleration benefits. Other applications will see the benefit, too.
The question really is: can each SPARC M4/T5 thread be engineered for equivalent throughput to SPARC VII+ thread?
Oracle demonstrated 6x per-thread improvement with the T4. Yes, it seems possible with M4.
Will Oracle drive "8+" sockets with the M4 processor? I doubt Oracle will dash high-margin "8+" socket machines to the rocks, so once again, it seems possible.
What technically do you see as the problem?
apleszko asks, "do you think having Fujitsu and Oracle to supply SPARC machines would be better for customers like it was during past Fujitsu / Sun competition?"
Fujitsu and Sun were always partners, always competitors. It is important to have 2 parts suppliers, to make sure parts are available in case of a catastrophic failure in one supplier (i.e. Sun had a few of them, in their SPARC lineup...) It was good for the customers to have Fujitsu to fall back on.)
apleszko asks, "Do you think Oracle would be willing to loose margins on a sale competing against Fujitsu HW, which would need to buy Solaris licenses from them anyway?"
You are asking a hypothetical questions, with little reasonable possibility of existing in the real world.
1) Oracle seems mostly interested in selling Oracle on Exadata. Database-in-a-Cloud is a big-thing right now.
2) Fujitsu is not targeting Database-in-a-Cloud customers, with Oracle embedded database machines.
3) Fujitsu also sells Linux on SPARC - Fujitsu could compete in embedded RDBMS without Solaris
Fujitsu is able to compete in SPARC ecosystem, without Oracle, a very interesting position to be in.
This is clearly a bonus to any customer... two viable hardware vendors, two viable OS vendors, two different hemispheres, one open CPU architecture based upon standards (where the vendors don't sue one another.)
If I was the military or government in any foreign nation, my choice would be clear.
Jesper asks, "How... are 192 S3 cores going to provide x6 throughput of 128 SPARC64-VII+ cores?"
I think this is a very interesting question... how does one get to 600% throughput increase?
- 4 cores per socket
- 2 thread per core
- 8 threads per socket
M? S3 Cores
- 6 cores per socket (conservative)
- 8 threads per core (normative)
- 48 threads per socket
An uneducated & cursory look indicates Jesper is really asking the wrong question.
A socket swap swap results in 6x thread increase.
The question which Jesper SHOULD have asked is, "How can EACH S3 thread be engineered to perform on-par with a SPARC VII+ thread?"
This is a not a difficult stretch, considering what has been demonstrated with the SPARC T4 processor.
/dev/null posts, "good... Oracle... dropped the "Solaris 10 9/11"-style maintentance release"
I hate the "#/##" notation. Completely useless. Make something confusing, hurts sales.
I also liked yyyy.mm releases... or "Solaris ## Update ##" notation.
The simplification of the product naming also makes it easier to verbially communicate, to assist with people understanding what they need to purcuase, what they did purchase, what they need in the future. Oracle got it right with T4-1, T4-2, T4-4, etc.
Author writes, "Mac OS X Mountain Lion decides which files to put in flash and which to leave on the disk drive, fusing the two drives into a single volume. The most-used applications and files are moved to the flash drive so they load quicker and receive updates faster, with reads off the flash and writes to it much faster than equivalent IOs to the disk drive."
Solaris based ZFS keeps all data on rotating rust, keeps most recently used blocks in memory, and will automatically rotate the most recently blocks (which slowly become less recently used) to flash based read cache... providing excellent performance and reliability.
Apple canceled their agreement wth Sun some years back, to ship ZFS for Apple MacOSX. This looks like a bit of hierarchal storage management, to finally compete with Solaris ZFS's flash based L2ARC!
It is very interesting that in the not-so-distant past, workstation & server manufacturers were all on Motorola processors and they moved to custom designed RISC chips. There was IBM PC and clones on Intel.
SPARC offered an open (royaltya free) rchitecture for dozens of designers and chip, board & system manufacturers - from embedded, to desktop, to to servers, to high-end SMP systems, to massive MPP systems. Anyone could design, burn, and build... everyone did.
The market seemed to consolidate back down to proprietary Intel chips, following the PC vendors.
Now, it seems vendors are moving back over to custom manufacturing, ARM seems to be SPARC with royalties. ARM controls the architecture, more aggressively than SPARC, but more loosely thatn Intel.
It should prove to be interesting into the future.
That is one way to look at it - but it is not entirely accurate. The color of the Republican Party if Green (i.e. the color of money.)
Women (not an ethnic group) are basically independant of either party, with a nearly even split, heavy influence in either political party (which is GOOD for them, equal representation!)
White (not an ethnic group) - are slightly more dependent upon Republican Party for representation.
Latino Ethnic Groups - are slightly more dependent upon Democratic Party for representation.
Black Ethnic Groups - for the most part are enslaved to the Democratic Party for their representation... with a slight uptick in movement towards the Republican Party during the 2010 mid-term elections (odd, with their ethnicity in the Presidency and their ethnicity's dominant favoured party in control of both the Legislative and Executive branch!)
One ABC (American Black Conservative) [in his own words] "won't stay on t he Democratic Plantation because of the color of his skin".
It is not good for ANY demographic to become heavily dependent upon a single political party. It is dangerous when you are counted against those who may offer a better opportunity for you. This person actually BELIEVES that President Obama supplied her and others telephones, thus wins their vote.
It is in the best interest of the Democratic Party to keep demographic groups voting for them and the main message from them is to emphasize: poverty, dependency, have them else take money from others to give to perspective voters. During the past 4 years, poverty has risen - and those in poverty are most likely to vote for Democrats (to use the power of the government gun to transfer money to them when they are in the time of need.)
It is in the best interest of the Republican Party to keep demographic groups voting for them and the main message for them to increase their base through lifting poor into middle class and middle class into upper class through wealth. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they lost this battle in 2008, with the election of a Democratic House of Representatives, Democratic Senate, and Democratic President. No representation of this demographic means the nation becomes poorer, the economy is depressed, and Republicans voting base loses more wealth (and more voters to replace those who die off.)
Neither party want the poor or elderly to be in need - they both understand that instability comes with idle hands joined to hungry stomachs and instability threatens their political power. At the same time, Demcrats have figured out they can manipulate demographics by making them dependent upon government (health care reform took over student loans from the banking sector to give Democrats another demographic to control) and the Republicans have been inept in keeping their opposing party from manipulating ethnic and other demographic groups to vote for them wholesale.
(Ironically, regarding the Obama Phone, that program was a private program which came into existence under the Republican G.W. Bush Administration, made possible through cooperative efforts dating back decades through Presidents of BOTH PARTIES... yet Democrats have capitalized on this political capital.)
The Democratic Party is more about government coersion (government taxation & income redistribution) while the Republican Party is more about personal freedom (growing wealth for everyone.) As long as the Democratic Party can keep more people poor and THINKING they are voting for their lives to be sustained, the Republicans don't have a chance. Candidate Romney alluded to this with his 47% remark, but has been ineffective in countering the rhetoric.
Article author writes, "Iran and North Korean may have little in common ideologically but both have apparently been driven closer by a shared enemy – a closeness that was cemented when former president George W Bush referred to the two as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq."
I am undertain how the author of this article could suggest such a thing, in good conscience.
The Axis of Evil speech illustrated existing solidified relationships. The results of this speech drove a wedge to help break those relationships apart.
It was shortly after this time that the existing nuclear trade between Pakistan, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Iraq was all blown wide open!
Iraq was violating their cease-fire agreement for about a decade; the bogus cease-fire agreement (restraint by the allies) was formally ended with allies resuming hostilities after the U.N. discovered illegal weapons which were developed during the cease-fire; Lybia peacefully ceasing their nuclear development (after the Iraqi invasion); North Korea continually violated the Korean War Armistice Agreement (before and after) by trying to build nuclear capabilities; Pakistani nuclear father was found to be proliferating nuclear assets to Iran, North Korea, Libya; via underground nuclear trade; Pakistan exchanging nuclear centrifuges for missile technology with North Korea; Pakistan offering nuclear centrifuge technology to Iran; Pakistan providing nuclear technology to Libya; Pakistan offering centrifuges to Iraq, etc. - it was a crazy number of years.
These relationships were solidified during the Clinton Years - when America found itself fat & happy, and withdrew from the world (including former hotspots like Afghanistan [who considered America an ally, during the war against the Soviets, but became disallusioned when America disappeared from Central Asia instead of remaining to demonstrate their friendship.])
Ironically, America is poised to do the exact same thing, again, after assisting Afghans against the [formerly?] Arab controlled Al-Qaeda. The Obama announcement of a withdrawal and the possible ceasing of engaging the Afghanistan with security and constructive economic dialog may doom their Central-Asian civilization for another quarter century. This is what some Afghani friends of mine feared, before the last elections when W was leaving office on his final term - they feared America could be an unreliable friend.
Clearly: disengagement drew illegal activities within these nations together; engagement brought closure to many of these illegal activities. Unfortunately - North Korea is a festering sore which neither engagement or disengagement [by any U.S. President] has been able to help heal. My heart goes out to the Korean people.
"We think Sparc will become clearly the best chip for running Oracle software. At that point we'd be nuts not to move Oracle Enterprise Linux there. We're a ways away, but I think that's definitely going to happen," Ellison said. "It's likely to happen in "the T4, T5 timeframe," he said
Linux is running on the Fujitsu SPARC64 MPP platforms. I don't know if Oracle Linux will be announced in October on the SPARC SMP platforms, but it could be...
Matt Bryant posts, "Snoreacle are now backtracking desperately and trying to make the new chips more and more like old RISC ones!"
The S3 core in the T4 & T5 will dynamically switch between single-threaded mode (for occasional bottlenecks) and multi-threaded mode (for higher throughput) - this is innovative, new, and very dynamic. It is really like nothing before in the RISC market. SPARC seems to be leading the way, again.
Matt Bryant posts, "Any Sunshiners out there still trying to pretend that single-threaded performance and cache don't matter?"
When Fujitsu shipped the fastest supercomputer in the world for nearly 12 months, it seems it made IBM re-think it's trajectory. SPARC64 continued to do well, in that case, without massive cache and phenominal single-threaded performance.
IBM predicting to double-stuff a socket when they ship a box (with more cores and slower clock rate) seems to be an admission that socket throughput matters and there is market which single-threaded performance and cache are not as important in all markets.
It is a bummer that IBM could not make POWER 7+ dynamic, like Oracle did for the past 2 generations of SPARC (T4 & T5)... it is also a bummer that IBM has still not delivered the POWER 7+, but is still talking about it, ~1 year late.
When/if the POWER 7+ ships, it will be nice, but from the release timing, it looks like IBM may have had to scrub the old 7+ design and re-build it to compete with the T series, much the same way Intel had to scrub their designs to compete with the early T series.
According to IBM's historical timeline, POWER 8 should be shipping next year... and POWER 7+ has not hit the market yet. How late is all this stuff?
The more diversity in the silicon market, the better for all consumers. I hope IBM delivers something, soon.
Anonymous writes, "As nice as these new SPARCs are, when compared to IBM's new offering, they just don't seem to be in the same league"
I think you are absolutely right.
- SPARC has been bundling encryption for a decade, POWER just started with 7+ (which is ~1 year late.)
- SPARC T5 dynamically switches between single thread and multi-thread loads, POWER introduced with 7+ (still ~1 year late) the ability to double-stuff a socket (at purchase time) with lower clock speeds to handle more threads.
- SPARC T5 offers glueless (fewer part count) 8 socket linear scalability while POWER 7+ will require more glue chips (more opportunities for hardware failure with higher part count.)
- SPARC T5 (may be early to market delivery) and POWER 7+ (~1 year late) will both offer compression
Anonymous writes, "How much better are these really than x86_64 chips in a real world situation, and is it worth the extra dosh?"
With the release of the T1, a single socket web server would outperform a quad socket Intel platform, in HTTPS requrests... at a much lower energy consumption rate... but calculating large spreadsheets was a bummer. But then again, I remember a certain floating point error in Intel hardware a number of years back.
To your point, how much better any hardware vendor is over another hardware vendor will really depends on the application.
The flood of benchmarks from Oracle World may help the market understand this.
TPM writes, "The Sparc T3 chip, based on the S3 core that was pretty terrible at single-threaded work given its design and low clock speed"
The T3 was not based on the S3 core.
The S3 core dynamically switches between fast single threaded workloads and highly multi-threaded workloads... (making it exceptional at both workloads!) The S3 operates at pretty high HZ rate (2.85GHz and higher), in comparison to the older cores used in the T1-T3 processors (1GHz-1.6GHz.)
I think you knew this, from the earlier paragraphs in the article, I think it was just a mistype.
Good article - hope you make the correction by removing the misnaming of the core in the T3.
> from a practical point of view it’s the two USB3 ports that will probably provide the greatest benefit in this model as it means that Mac users no longer have to pay over the odds for Firewire or Thunderbolt storage
Having worked with FireWire400 and USB2.0 - I can tell you, in a heart beat, that the choice of FireWire over USB has little to do with cost, all to do with performance. CPU consumption seems to be consistently lower using Firewire over USB at the same throughput.
It will be interesting, to see the results of the FireWire 800, Thunderbolt, and USB 3.0 tests. Perhaps, there will be a performance throughput difference with high-end SSD media, I wonder if it will be noticeable with rotating rust?
There is the added bonus of keeping those two USB ports available for a USB video compression stick and a USB TV tuners - although they don't need USB3.0 throughput.
Keeping these USB ports available swapping non-firewire cameras on and off will be very important.
Trying to keep the USB ports free was another reason for using network based printers.
Since USB 3.0 can't daisy-chain, using these ports for anything important like fixed disks is absolutely insane. This is the one thing that USB 3.0 ports will most likely not be practically used for, by some of us.
I guess there may be some people who may buy the Macbook who do not do video work, perhaps they will have be able to use USB 3.0 hard disks.
It would be nice to know the hidden & undocumented menus used to Cisco's cloud management - then we can build our own local interface.
A few of examples of hidden menus on a high-end consumer wireless access device:
How about just bundling the capabilities into the device so nothing external is needed?
How about bundling standard SNMPv3 into the device so external interfaces can be standardized?
... but my T4-4 platform cluster is awesome - they are everything anticipated, and more!
Interestingly, not a stitch of Oracle Applications on them - with the exception of Solaris & Java. They are making a great general purpose cluster for telco apps - especially with with the crypto off-loading engines, saving the costs/complexity in deploying additional appliances.
Now, looking forward for the T5 CPU boards, to grant general purpose applications a nice boost via with hardware compression, adding ZFS filesystem throughput (not to mention, double the cores per socket.) The double of sockets per chassis in the next (T5?) systems later this year should be a bonus.
teknopaul posts, "Mozilla should not need to have to "step up""
This is the platforms most significant drawback. Enterprise grade frameworks, toolkits, and languages run under UNIX, Windows, and Linux. V8 is fast, but not portable - 2 out of 3 ain't bad - but it ain't exactly good.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018