Intel defeats Risc

[George Macdonald]

The question becomes "where elsewhere?" Other embedded applications?
That sounds right, although they need to be BIG applications unless I
miss the price points of PPC and ARM, as well as Intel's RISC CPUs.

IBM's primary partner to date is Mercury Computer systems, see here:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA6264328.html.
Here's the original announcement:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA621893?text=mercury+and+ibm.

 

[Bill Davidsen]

IBM's primary partner to date is Mercury Computer systems, see here:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA6264328.html.
Here's the original announcement:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA621893?text=mercury+and+ibm.

Did I call that one! Big embedded application (as in compute intensive),
and use of Linux. Thanks for the links!

 

[George Macdonald]

Actually, it's the first time I've even gotten a hint that you're from
out UK way. You may have mentioned it to other people in some other
threads, but I missed those completely.

I'm not from out UK way - Tellurian.com is a few miles up the road.

But of course, you're from there, you got a colorful derogaratory term
already available for the Guardian newspaper, which would indicate
you're locally familiar with it.

I just know some UK jargon... I also know some French idioms...
historical.

The new Sun Fire (Galaxy) x2100 server costs about US$750 in its most
basic configuration. It has LOM and RAS features included. Sun tried to
sell some crappy UltraSparc boxes a few years ago (Sun Ultra 5 & 10)
for cheap but they never went below $1000. Usually they never go below
$10,000.

Yes well I know there have also been changes in software license terms too
- that doesn't seem like a valid comparison. Like I said: overrated
premium for unique CPU. The world has changed in that respect.

Not just Windows, but x86 in general. For example, websites seem to be
going overwhelmingly Linux and Apache, replacing Sparc/Solaris and
Apache. Microsoft IIS is almost dead now, killed by its own reputation
for being an unsecure POS.

And yet for corporate Intranet, .NET Framework is often chosen because it's
quick & dirty and easy to get at... which often seems to lead to umm,
fragile results.

However, in the database side of things, you'll see equal amounts of
Oracle and MS-SQLserver. SQLserver on smaller projects, Oracle on the
bigger ones. Oracle you'll see running on either Windows or Linux quite
often these days too, again replacing most of the Unixes (including
AIX, Solaris, and HPUX). Whether they choose Windows or Linux largely
depends on whether there is any local Linux/Unix expertise, which
usually there isn't.

I don't know where you're "seeing" those - from industry reports, x86(-64)
is naturally gaining some ground at the low-end but recent sales of
Windows/Unix/Linux, on a variety of boxes including Risc, all seem to be
growing. The word I hear from a couple of mission critical Web site guys
is that they are sticking with Sparc/Solaris.

I'm afraid your last two sentences above seem to be contradictory: people
are replacing Unix boxes with Windows boxes because they don't have
Linux/Unix expertise?? What happened to it? If they're letting that
expertise fly out the door, they're going to get in a heap of trouble with
neophyte Active Directory experience... and will serve the buggers right
for scimping on critical tasks. Out-sourcing... even worse: an out-source
is only as good as his last corporate experience.

Other things you might see running on x86 more often than not these
days are Windows-based Active Directory (which could be used to replace
DNS, since it includes the DNS protocol); in many ways, AD is superior
to old fashioned BIND, simply because of its automation -- it adds
servers automatically to its list without needing to change a config
file. Network backup services, such as Veritas Netbackup, Tivoli
Storage Manager, Legato, etc., are often being run off of Windows
servers rather than Unix ones; they'll even be backing up Unix servers.
Mail servers, namely Exchange, is the undisputed corporate email
standard, and runs only on Windows.

I know what Active Directory is - I've had to tangle with it often enough
and the "automation" is only skin-deep... I only wish I could have some of
those hours back. If people are falling for the M$ BS, all I can say is
they're in for a rude awakening when things start to fall over and get err,
tangled. I've no idea how it compares with Novell's directory services,
which it was intended to compete with, since I never used that... but I
don't think the idea of Primary DCs and Backup or Secondary DCs is uniquely
M$'s.

Misleading to compare revenues rather than actual numbers. The reason
Unix revenue is so high is precisely because it is too expensive.
People are simply not willing to play that much for servers anymore
these days, unless they have no choice. In other words if they already
have a preexisting RISC Unix installation, and they want to upgrade the
hardware they will go with the exact same RISC/Unix combo they already
have. You won't even see them move from one RISC/Unix to another
RISC/Unix, because if they could migrate in that direction, they might
as well have migrated all of the way to x86/Windows. So RISC/Unix is
being supported mainly on repeat sales these days.

They're "factory sales" so the numbers are not that misleading. Oh and
Windows Server is not exactly inexpensive.

From what I see, I'd summarise things as: Risc/Unix is still doing very
well, and increasing sales in the high-end and quite well in mid-range but
is losing in the "volume" side, which is natural as more powerful x86-64s
become available. That loss seems to be taken up my a mix of Linux &
Windows Server with the larger portion of that Linux. Then again, nobody
knows how many DIY Linuxes are out there... flying by the seat of their
pants.

 

[YKhan]

And yet for corporate Intranet, .NET Framework is often chosen because it's
quick & dirty and easy to get at... which often seems to lead to umm,
fragile results.

..NET has nothing directly to do with IIS, it's just Microsoft's
competitor to Java. You should be able to send .NET content over
anybody's webserver.

I don't know where you're "seeing" those - from industry reports, x86(-64)
is naturally gaining some ground at the low-end but recent sales of
Windows/Unix/Linux, on a variety of boxes including Risc, all seem to be
growing. The word I hear from a couple of mission critical Web site guys
is that they are sticking with Sparc/Solaris.

As I said further down, those who already have a RISC/Unix solution are
stuck with it. This is where most new RISC/Unix sales are coming from,
from upgrades and extensions to existing frameworks.

I'm afraid your last two sentences above seem to be contradictory: people
are replacing Unix boxes with Windows boxes because they don't have
Linux/Unix expertise?? What happened to it? If they're letting that
expertise fly out the door, they're going to get in a heap of trouble with
neophyte Active Directory experience... and will serve the buggers right
for scimping on critical tasks. Out-sourcing... even worse: an out-source
is only as good as his last corporate experience.

Yeah, well Unix administrators are a heap more expensive than Windows
admins, so yes they are letting go of them. Or these guys are leaving
on their own, going to places which pay even more.

I know what Active Directory is - I've had to tangle with it often enough
and the "automation" is only skin-deep... I only wish I could have some of
those hours back. If people are falling for the M$ BS, all I can say is
they're in for a rude awakening when things start to fall over and get err,
tangled. I've no idea how it compares with Novell's directory services,
which it was intended to compete with, since I never used that... but I
don't think the idea of Primary DCs and Backup or Secondary DCs is uniquely
M$'s.

Yup, the initial lower price-tag of Windows Active Directory might be
eaten up by maintenance and unreliability. Oh well, c'est la vie.

They're "factory sales" so the numbers are not that misleading. Oh and
Windows Server is not exactly inexpensive.

No, but Windows Server+x86 boxes are still is cheaper than most
Unix+RISC boxes. But Linux+x86 boxes are cheaper than all of them. Too
bad there's not enough Unix experience in most places to run a Linux
box.

From what I see, I'd summarise things as: Risc/Unix is still doing very
well, and increasing sales in the high-end and quite well in mid-range but
is losing in the "volume" side, which is natural as more powerful x86-64s
become available. That loss seems to be taken up my a mix of Linux &
Windows Server with the larger portion of that Linux. Then again, nobody
knows how many DIY Linuxes are out there... flying by the seat of their
pants.

No, that's the way it *was*. RISC/Unix was doing well in high- and
mid-range, but now it's only doing well in high-end. Most of the
mid-range is being taken over by x86.

It's only a matter of time before even the high-end is taken over.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

.NET has nothing directly to do with IIS, it's just Microsoft's
competitor to Java. You should be able to send .NET content over
anybody's webserver.

Haven't tried it but ActiveX is surely tied up with Windows Server and IIS
makes sense... and IE on the other end of course. Why anybody would serve
ActiveX from a Unix box?

As I said further down, those who already have a RISC/Unix solution are
stuck with it. This is where most new RISC/Unix sales are coming from,
from upgrades and extensions to existing frameworks.

That is happening to some extent and with, e.g. new remote installs, but
you'll need further evidence here against the fact that there are always
some who *have* to move up - it's what the industry pubs are saying.

Yeah, well Unix administrators are a heap more expensive than Windows
admins, so yes they are letting go of them. Or these guys are leaving
on their own, going to places which pay even more.

Like I said - they'll learn when the thing falls over. No reason that
Windows admins should be cheaper - this is the big M$ lie.

Yup, the initial lower price-tag of Windows Active Directory might be
eaten up by maintenance and unreliability. Oh well, c'est la vie.

So people are falling for the M$ trap all over again after just getting
their asses bitten on the upgrade scam.

No, but Windows Server+x86 boxes are still is cheaper than most
Unix+RISC boxes. But Linux+x86 boxes are cheaper than all of them. Too
bad there's not enough Unix experience in most places to run a Linux
box.


No, that's the way it *was*. RISC/Unix was doing well in high- and
mid-range, but now it's only doing well in high-end. Most of the
mid-range is being taken over by x86.

No, read the article, look at the numbers, though you can have a personal
view of "mid-range".

 

[Stuart Krivis]

The new Sun Fire (Galaxy) x2100 server costs about US$750 in its most
basic configuration. It has LOM and RAS features included. Sun tried to
sell some crappy UltraSparc boxes a few years ago (Sun Ultra 5 & 10)
for cheap but they never went below $1000. Usually they never go below
$10,000.

The U-5 and U-10 were workstations, not servers. A perhaps equivalent
server to the x2100 was the Netra X1 (which later became the SunFire
V120). I know the X1 could be had for less than $1K because I
purchased some at $995 for the company I worked for.

I also bought a refurbed U-10 at one point (and still use it), and I
wouldn't call it "crappy." It's a pretty decent workstation. In fact,
I've found that it (at 300 MHz) keeps up quite well compared with an
x86 Linux box with a far faster CPU. (My Mac with a 400 MHz G4 also
performs better than you would think compared to "faster" x86 boxes.)



(I do feel that Sun's new Opteron boxes are a good deal. They look
quite capable and the pricing looks good too. Sun will even provide
support for customers running Linux or Windows now. They may well give
Dell a run for its money.)

However, in the database side of things, you'll see equal amounts of
Oracle and MS-SQLserver. SQLserver on smaller projects, Oracle on the
bigger ones. Oracle you'll see running on either Windows or Linux quite
often these days too, again replacing most of the Unixes (including
AIX, Solaris, and HPUX). Whether they choose Windows or Linux largely
depends on whether there is any local Linux/Unix expertise, which
usually there isn't.

Several people I respect tell me that Oracle on Linux really doesn't
scale up that well. It's evidently fine for clusters of up to 4, but
not larger.

There is still a use for large Risc UNIX boxes.

Mail servers, namely Exchange, is the undisputed corporate email
standard, and runs only on Windows.

Misleading to compare revenues rather than actual numbers. The reason
Unix revenue is so high is precisely because it is too expensive.
People are simply not willing to play that much for servers anymore
these days, unless they have no choice. In other words if they already

Both of these serve to illustrate a point some people forget. A big
UNIX box may be able to do far more work than a larger number of x86
boxes. If you have to replace 1 U$100,000 UNIX box with 10 US$10,000
x86 boxes, have you really gained anything? I'd say that it could be
misleading to compare based on revenues _or_ actual numbers. I think
we need more information than just that.

With Exchange, you tend to need far more servers and administrators
than you do with UNIX or Linux solutions.Does the replacement of 1
UNIX or Linux server with multiple Exchange boxes really say anything
about growth?

What people perceive themselves to be paying and what they're actually
paying can be quite different.

I've also found that it's all the add-on pieces that are expensive,
not just the CPU. An x86 server using Opterons that's equivalent to,
for example, a Sun 8900 is going to be just as pricey as the 8900 is.

The playing field is becoming far more level, but I still think it's a
mistake to assume you'll always save money by going with x86.
Sometimes you will and sometimes you won't.

 

[Stuart Krivis]

Like I said - they'll learn when the thing falls over. No reason that
Windows admins should be cheaper - this is the big M$ lie.

Yep. A good admin is a good admin, whatever platform they specialize
on. A good admin is going to cost money.

 

[Bill Davidsen]

The U-5 and U-10 were workstations, not servers. A perhaps equivalent
server to the x2100 was the Netra X1 (which later became the SunFire
V120). I know the X1 could be had for less than $1K because I
purchased some at $995 for the company I worked for.

I also bought a refurbed U-10 at one point (and still use it), and I
wouldn't call it "crappy." It's a pretty decent workstation. In fact,
I've found that it (at 300 MHz) keeps up quite well compared with an
x86 Linux box with a far faster CPU. (My Mac with a 400 MHz G4 also
performs better than you would think compared to "faster" x86 boxes.)



(I do feel that Sun's new Opteron boxes are a good deal. They look
quite capable and the pricing looks good too. Sun will even provide
support for customers running Linux or Windows now. They may well give
Dell a run for its money.)

I'm still looking for the "right" Opteron system board for a proof of
concept system, dual dual-core with 2 or 4 GB RAM, two cables of PATA,
some SATA and/or SCSI, some USB 2.0, and AGP. Unfortunately the proof
has to be in ATX form factor, for various non-technical reasons. That
would let me upgrade an existing system, which in reality is a different
pocket than a new system.

Several people I respect tell me that Oracle on Linux really doesn't
scale up that well. It's evidently fine for clusters of up to 4, but
not larger.

There is still a use for large Risc UNIX boxes.

AFAIK (from ComputerWorld or InfoWorld) Oracle now does development on
Linux/x86 and then ports and tests to other machines. I would assume
that they test real-world configurations.

Both of these serve to illustrate a point some people forget. A big
UNIX box may be able to do far more work than a larger number of x86
boxes. If you have to replace 1 U$100,000 UNIX box with 10 US$10,000
x86 boxes, have you really gained anything? I'd say that it could be
misleading to compare based on revenues _or_ actual numbers. I think
we need more information than just that.

These days there are no $100k boxes, there are cheap boxes with
expensive storage and RAM attached and inserted. The cost of SCSI disk
and RAM memory is pretty much a constant, and given the performance of
modern x86 CPUs I don't think anyone will need 10x as many, so the 10:1
is somewhere between unusual and and contrived. There might be such a
case, but the RISC folks aren't going to stay solvent counting on them,
which is why IBM and others are going x86 in one or another 64 bit
flavor in their server offerings.

 

[keith]

Yep. A good admin is a good admin, whatever platform they specialize
on. A good admin is going to cost money.

The difference is that Windows needs good admins and *ix _requires_ good
admins. Good admins cost money. MSCD's, or whatever they hire from
McD's, are a dime a dozen.

 

[keith]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:55:33 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:

I'm still looking for the "right" Opteron system board for a proof of
concept system, dual dual-core with 2 or 4 GB RAM, two cables of PATA,
some SATA and/or SCSI, some USB 2.0, and AGP. Unfortunately the proof
has to be in ATX form factor, for various non-technical reasons. That
would let me upgrade an existing system, which in reality is a different
pocket than a new system.

I don't see anything in your list that hasn't been available for s few
years. This Opteron (18mos. old) is only a single processor (Tyan
S2875S), but only because the other processor socket isn't. The S2875 is
a two-processor board, though only has memory hooked to one. The S2885
and up have memory on both processors. Your memory requirements aren't an
issue in any case.

Maybe there is an unsaid requirement?

<snip>

 

[Torbjorn Lindgren]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:55:33 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:


I don't see anything in your list that hasn't been available for s few
years. This Opteron (18mos. old) is only a single processor (Tyan
S2875S), but only because the other processor socket isn't. The S2875 is
a two-processor board, though only has memory hooked to one. The S2885
and up have memory on both processors. Your memory requirements aren't an
issue in any case.
Maybe there is an unsaid requirement?

Except that Tyan claims that the board you mention does NOT meet the
critera (doesn't support 2 dual core processors)! There no notes about
dual-core support in the BIOS upgrade notes either, so it's probably
not fixable by new BIOS either. All the dual socket dual-core capable
Tyan's are 12"x13" or more (full E-ATX)...

Now, MSI does have two motherboards which does fit the criteria, K8N
Master2-FAR (nVIDIA® nForce4 Pro, PCI-E SLI) and K8T Master2-FAR7 (VIA
K8T800, AGP Pro 8x) (it says "NEW" but they're available in stock at
retail).

The K8N Master2-FAR has 6 DIMM slots, and *probably* have memory on
both CPUs (more bandwidth), the manual isn't particularly helpful,
while the Tyan and K8T both appear to have all memory on CPU0. K8N is
somewhat more expensive, but should be a superior product.

On marginal possibility is ASUS K8N-DL, it's not THAT much bigger than
standard ATX (12"x10.5" vs 12"x10"), and works in many (but not all)
non E-ATX cases. It's nForce 4 Pro non-SLI but OTOH it's cheaper
(similar in price to K8T with AGP/4DIMM) and have 6 DIMM slots with
memory on both CPUs (4+2, like K8N *might* have).

Of course if one accepts E-ATX (which most cases do) there are a even
more options, but that wasn't the case here.

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/opteron.html
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_list.asp?class=mb&cpu=3
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K8N_Master2-FAR&class=mb
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K8T_Master2-FAR7&class=mb
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=9&l2=39&l3=174&model=456&modelmenu=1

 

[keith]

Except that Tyan claims that the board you mention does NOT meet the
critera (doesn't support 2 dual core processors)! There no notes about
dual-core support in the BIOS upgrade notes either, so it's probably
not fixable by new BIOS either. All the dual socket dual-core capable
Tyan's are 12"x13" or more (full E-ATX)...

Yeah, I missed your "dual core" requirement. The other Tyans seem to all
fail one of the other requirements as well, either two pATA or USB 2.0
(who the hell puts *8* USB 1.1 ports on a board???).

Now, MSI does have two motherboards which does fit the criteria, K8N
Master2-FAR (nVIDIA® nForce4 Pro, PCI-E SLI) and K8T Master2-FAR7 (VIA
K8T800, AGP Pro 8x) (it says "NEW" but they're available in stock at
retail).

The K8N doesn't have AGP; one of your requirements, no? It also only has
1 PCI slot, not likely a problem (I have no PCI cards in this system), but
I get nervous with such limited legacy support. ;-)

The K8N Master2-FAR has 6 DIMM slots, and *probably* have memory on both
CPUs (more bandwidth), the manual isn't particularly helpful, while the
Tyan and K8T both appear to have all memory on CPU0. K8N is somewhat
more expensive, but should be a superior product.

With six DIMM slots, it's likely memory is only on one (should be
balanced between the two). By the picture, the K8N's memory looks like its
on one processor.

 

[Rob Stow]

Yeah, I missed your "dual core" requirement. The other Tyans seem to all
fail one of the other requirements as well, either two pATA or USB 2.0
(who the hell puts *8* USB 1.1 ports on a board???).

That last part is all AMD's fault. The first few Tyan dual s940
motherboards used an AMD 81x1 chipset that was /supposed/ to
support USB2. Pre-release specs for the S2885 had four USB 2
ports. However, when it came time to push the motherboards out
the door, AMD still had not solved USB 2 issues - and they never
did.

IWill and MSI circumvented this problem for some, but not all, of
their boards that used that AMD chipset by adding third-party
USB controllers - from SiL, IIRC.

The K8N doesn't have AGP; one of your requirements, no? It also only has
1 PCI slot, not likely a problem (I have no PCI cards in this system), but
I get nervous with such limited legacy support. ;-)


With six DIMM slots, it's likely memory is only on one (should be
balanced between the two). By the picture, the K8N's memory looks like its
on one processor.

You are correct. I tested one system with that board (K8N
MasterFar-2)and the DIMMs were all accessible from CPU0 when the
socket for CPU1 was empty. And the manual was indeed not helpful
on this issue - hence my pulling the second CPU to find this out.

Putting them all on CPU0 was probably a board layout issue: that
ATX board is absolute coated with chips, sockets, and traces and
MSI would have been hard pressed to rearrange things to let them
split the DIMM sockets between the processors.

For video creation/editting/encoding applications, that board
with six 2 GB DIMMs tended to be about 7% slower than a Tyan
S2895 with the same amount of RAM split 4/2 between the two CPUs.



Methinks the OP is going to have to either bite the bullet and
get an E-ATX case or settle for the K8N Master2-Far or an Asus
K8N-DL. The later is 12" by 10.5 inches but it would fit in
most full-tower and mid-tower ATX cases if you could live without
the usual front drive cage and only use the drive bays that are
completely above the motherboard.

However, in my el-cheapo ATX case at home it looks like I could
use that Asus board *and* keep that drive cage if I rotated it
the drive cage 90 degrees so that the drives were held
vertically. Its not the size of the drive cage that it the
issue - it is the 1.75" of each drive that sticks out the back
of the cages and another 3/4" for the cables. Rotate the drive
cage and I would get another 2.5" of space for the motherboard to
use. Moving drives in and out of the rotated cage looks like it
would be pretty awkward but not impossible.


I have also used an full-sized E-ATX motherboard (12" by 13") in
a full-tower ATX case by doing away with that drive cage.

And now that I've opened up my case to investigate, I see that it
is time for a little dusting. Sayonara.

 

[keith]

That last part is all AMD's fault. The first few Tyan dual s940
motherboards used an AMD 81x1 chipset that was /supposed/ to
support USB2. Pre-release specs for the S2885 had four USB 2
ports. However, when it came time to push the motherboards out
the door, AMD still had not solved USB 2 issues - and they never
did.

Ok, I guss that makes some sense (*some*). But my Tyan 2875 has 2.0 ports
off a secondary chip (too dark in here to read the manual ;-). This is
simply stupid, though perhaps they don't think "servers" (Opterons) need
such trivia.

IWill and MSI circumvented this problem for some, but not all, of their
boards that used that AMD chipset by adding third-party USB controllers
- from SiL, IIRC.

Ok, you're forcing me to turn the lights on (oh, my knees are tired!)...

It's a Via 6212 off the PCI bus.

You are correct. I tested one system with that board (K8N
MasterFar-2)and the DIMMs were all accessible from CPU0 when the socket
for CPU1 was empty. And the manual was indeed not helpful on this issue
- hence my pulling the second CPU to find this out.

MSI doesn't even put the damned things online! I knew there was a reason
they weren't on my short list.

Putting them all on CPU0 was probably a board layout issue: that ATX
board is absolute coated with chips, sockets, and traces and MSI would
have been hard pressed to rearrange things to let them split the DIMM
sockets between the processors.

Isn't the Tyan 2885 an ATX? Dunno, I never paid much attention to such
details. If it fits...

<good information snipped>

 

[Rob Stow]

Isn't the Tyan 2885 an ATX? Dunno, I never paid much attention to such
details. If it fits...

All of the S288x are E-ATX. Also the S2895.

I /think/ the S287x are all ATX, so you might be thinking about
one of those.

And someone has promised to send me a dead S4882. No use for it
- I just want to hold that 4P sucker in my hands and then hang it
on my wall until I get tired of hearing how tacky it looks ;-)

 

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:55:33 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:




I don't see anything in your list that hasn't been available for s few
years. This Opteron (18mos. old) is only a single processor (Tyan
S2875S), but only because the other processor socket isn't. The S2875 is
a two-processor board, though only has memory hooked to one. The S2885
and up have memory on both processors. Your memory requirements aren't an
issue in any case.

Maybe there is an unsaid requirement?

Thanks to you and the other folks who have responded. Between you the
problems have been mentioned. Some boards are dual CPU but not dual
core, some are oversize, somce have all the memory on one CPU, some have
only USB 1.0, some don't have AGP. The CPUs are relatively cheap and
available, but the system board has proven to be to some extent an
issue. I want this to be a drop-in system board upgrade which can be a
checklist item on a config sheet, not a whole other system type.