She must've been really hot :)
29 posts • joined 8 Apr 2013
"Microsoft has ported its Entity Framework Object-Relational database library to .NET Core, but some developers avoid this for performance reasons."
Horrible performance (I've seen analysis which showed 4x to 7x slower than optimized SQL) is one reason to avoid EF. But the bigger issue is the lack of need for it to exist in the first place. It introduces an unnecessary logical black box into your code. If one were to build something from scratch with best practices (admittedly it rarely happens) then one would write backend code in C# and database code in SQL. At the end of the day EF is merely a SQL code generator. Instead of using EF you're much better off just writing proper SQL. EF makes code more readable and "easier" to develop at the expense of know WTF is happening in the db. Have you seen an EF manual? It's not simple. Why not just learn SQL and do a proper job?
Assigning user names is precisely a situation which calls for acid compliance. Why would anyone give that up to write their own fudge sandwich? Now you have 2 problems...
No joins, no underlying normalized data tables, no acid compliance, no SQL languange, etc... Yes, it's possible to build something without these features but GOOD LUCK making changes. You're gong to need it. Remember, Paul Bunyan died the next day and the steam engine showed up just fine..
>>>Showing your cards there Capt'n, got an ax to grind?<<<
Yeah maybe. Hubris tends to lead to a comeuppance.
>>>Selling the fabs has nothing to do with weakness.<<<
Ah ok. Except they didn't "sell the fabs" they PAID SOMEONE TO TAKE THEM. When you sell something the buyer pays the seller money. That's not what happened here. See the difference?
>>>[blah blah blah}... per core compared to... [blah blah blah]<<<
Keep pushing the "per core" nonsense if it works for you as a sales spiel. Selectively choosing benchmarks is just troll food.
>>>I don't want to be one of those guys who constantly says "I can't tell you more because of my NDAs..." Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I think that line would make me sound like a pretentious and pompous asshat.<<<
It depends on what audience you're playing to. To some folks making an unqualified statement of fact like: "There is also a Power processor roadmap that includes Power9 and other processors." without backing it up with any facts or comments makes for, well... in your own words, "a pretentious and pompous asshat." Is this statement true for no other reason then because you said it was true? Is it true for another reason? Do you understand why someone might want to know?
It's been a few years but I used to sit in on IBM (NDA required) product briefings on Power servers. They never had a roadmap (late '90's early '00's) back then. It was always supposed to be just assumed/understood Power 7/7+ would follow Power 6/6+ which followed Power 5/5+... If you asked for one they were like "ask Sun for theirs we're IBM and we don't need such things..." At the time Power CPU's were clearly best.
Now, it's 2014 and IBM has had to pay someone to take their antiquated fabs (out of weakness) and dumped their X-Series servers (out of weakness). So the perception is IBM's "trust me" lack of roadmap is not good enough anymore. Power system sales have been weak and their relative competitive performance seems stagnant if not weakening. People are seriously questioning IBM's commitment to hardware. Legitimately so, would you agree?
>>>I would also point out that being 'in the know' doesn't necessarily mean anything. Take the Sun Rock processor example that a lot of people cite in these comments. Sun repeatedly told the analyst community, myself included, that Rock was healthy and coming along. Maybe a little late, but it's going to be awesome when it's released.<<<
This is exactly the point which was being addressed to you.
>>>2. There is also a Power processor roadmap that includes Power9 and other processors. From what I've heard from very reliable sources, there are Power9 processors running in labs today.<<<
Let's see it. Sun said over and over Rock CPU was testing in the labs and it was going to happen. Until it's on a roadmap (either public or requires NDA) then it's NOT on a roadmap. Funny you don't say you're prevented by NDA from showing something you've seen yourself. You're passing off hearsay like it's credible news which is not really competent journalism I'm sorry to say.
It seems Oracle has gone for the latter. For a system designed to work with in memory db and SSD storage it seems like a natural decision IMO. There is far less latency from persistent storage versus spinning rust. Unfortunately, Oracle's presentation on SPARC M7 cache hierarchy at Hot Chips 26 is still password protected.
Yes, I do admit to an extreme characterization here. Your points are all well taken. Many vendors Oracle/Intel/IBM use multi chip modules and different activation schemes for capacity on demand and other reasons. It's totally legitimate practice and they all do it.
IBM Power and Oracle's per core pricing put the final shade on the Sunshiners. I was never one of them because SPARC wasn't a good investment for a long time. In my earliest days we used Oracle on Sun SPARC, in the early/mid '90's. After that it was HP and IBM (Power 4 and Power 5) until around 2008. Since then I'm in a Microsoft stack Dell server shop. So I'm not religious about any one thing. Oracle makes the best database though SQL Server is equal/close in many ways.
Bottom line is there are 3 chip manufacturing trains which are competing through 10nm/7nm/5nm Intel, TSMC, and Samsung. It seems to me IBM needs to get on board one of those trains asap if it wants to keep up.
"Each socket in the current Power8 Scale-out server is package with up to 2 x 6 core chip modules. IBM has done this on Power5, Power6 and now with Power8 servers so nothing new. Moreover, whats wrong with it if it performs? Your comment about "Performance not good" is off base. What do you base it on?"
You've clearly drank the IBM Kool Aid. It's entirely possible Power8 is a good step up from P7+ and "your customers" are seeing nice performance improvements. My post said nothing about comparing P8 to prior generation of Power.
Do you realize 2x6=12? When Power8 was previewed at Hot Chips 25 (last year, 2013) it was presented as a single die 12 core chip. Here's the Reg article:
To date no IBM system offers a single die 12 core Power8. When you introduce something as one thing and then release it as another it's know as FUD in the IT business. In retail it's called "bait and switch". Despite your rant.
Do you realize the 6 core chips in the 2 chip modules (remember 2x6=12) contain inactive cores? Why would this be the case? Maybe IBM fabs cannot manufacture the single part in high enough yields. Will Oracle follow IBM's lead and introduce 2x16 core (with deactivated cores) SPARC chip modules because it's a better solution? Sorry no, it's the opposite.
Also, IBM's desperation to unload chip fabs. TSMC is far ahead of IBM. Supposedly Power8 yields are low and they're using 2 chip modules to get to 12 cores per slot. Performance not good because of loss of single chip cache coherence so they went to giant off chip(s) shared L4 cache. Sparc M7 seems like a big step ahead.
That these articles are being written without any mention of HP-UX is proof positive HP is hopelessly out to lunch. Why would a company with an existing somewhat modern version of Unix speak about building high memory bandwidth systems and ignore their own kit? Who do they intend to sell it to, because it can't be to their installed based of HP-UX? If HP is serious about a new enterprise OS then they need to figure out how to set an example with HP-UX. So far I would give HP an F- in OS ownership and roadmap. Truth hurts.
"I think you're missing the point, this isn't targetted at heavy lifting, this is targetted at scale out workloads. It's not a replacement for the current Proliants, it targets a different market altogether."
Am I the one missing the point? You listen to what vendor says and make conclusion. I look at what box can do in data center and then decide. T series is for scale out also but flexible and probably only for current Oracle customers. How does new box compare to 4 DL100's with 2x low voltage 8 core Xeons? That's 64 cores and 128 full power threads in 4U. I'm having a hard time configure situation in which new boxes make sense. Forget out data layer. That's my opinion with much experience. HP doesn't want to talk about data layer. My opinion based on article, if virtualization penalty is high on Atom and machine is used as front end or file utility then machine makes little to no sense when you consider alternatives. If machine exists in mixed use environment then it's useless. If make custom box for oneself, then immediately discard all 45 cartridge casings.
Ok so you say:
+ "... will run bogstandard x64 apps"
+ "...not much call for enterprise Unix at the low end when Linux does it cheaper."
+ "...I wonder if they'll make a blade..."
Help me understand the hyperbole from HP management. Why are people going to be looking back at this announcement as huge news? I'm longtime database developer primarily on AIX and HP-UX platforms. This seems like another low end box where HP dumps you off on the door step of a Linux vendor or Microsoft. Are we supposed to forget about HP-UX? Idk it just seems odd to hear a major server announcement with major hoopla and leave out or forget mention the rest of HP servers.
You say this is a low end box and so it appears. One vendor might call their box a low end machine and charge a high price, another might call it a high end box and sell to for a low price. If you forget about vendor offered characterizations, the T box has way more of everything in the same (or roughly the same) rack space.
They make it hard to compare the specs on this thing. It seems like a 4.3U server contains 3 rows of 15 cartridges with 4 nodes each. Each node is 64-bit Atom 2.0 GHz and has 8Gb Ram. So 180 nodes with 360 threads and (8x45) 360 Gb of Ram.
Why the odd rack size? That's ok if they fill up the entire rack, like with a Superdome.
If you compare this machine to an Oracle T5-4 it's pretty clear HP is out to lunch. Will you be able to run licensed code on this box? Which? What about HP-UX?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019