Re: Newisys AMD x86-64 servers - SUN

This is a discussion on Re: Newisys AMD x86-64 servers - SUN ; Paul S Brown wrote: > I know this is a Sparc/Solaris newsgroup, but sometimes the antipathy > towards x86 boxes gets a bit puerile. Puerile huh? That's too big a word for the Wintel/Lintel kiddies to assimilate. However, it doesn't ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Newisys AMD x86-64 servers

  1. Re: Newisys AMD x86-64 servers

    Paul S Brown wrote:

    > I know this is a Sparc/Solaris newsgroup, but sometimes the antipathy
    > towards x86 boxes gets a bit puerile.


    Puerile huh? That's too big a word for the Wintel/Lintel kiddies
    to assimilate. However, it doesn't stop them acting like trolls,
    retards, arsewipes and other assorted dickheads by crossposting to
    inappropriate newsgroups trying to start a flame war.

    > Historically x86 and SPARC have played in different market sectors, and this
    > shows in the typical design of the hardware.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    You've got that right.

    > Assuming that Sun has some overriding technical superiority and will conquer
    > all is a fallacy. Their hardware has gone from being completely bulletproof
    > (SS20, 3/480 etc) to more than a little problematic (Ultra 5/10/30/60 - all
    > with build quality issues).


    Its funny you should mention the Ultra 5 and 10 et al. Its also
    funny that you don't mention why they are problematic. So I'll
    mention why. Its because they has puissant PC peripherals in them.
    Whack in IDE drives and controllers, PC-type memory, PCI bus
    crapola, etc., etc., etc. and watch the quality go down the tube.
    Welcome to the wonderful world of quality PC hardware.

    > The only major thing Sun have going for them is Solaris.


    I think you mean "one of the major ...". Of course, not having
    that level of quality didn't stop Microsoft and Intel getting
    to where they are today.

    > Solaris is a damned good OS, but Suns current plans look to try and
    > undermine that. I have been told by a couple of senior level contacts that
    > they are going to try to accelerate the feature improvement of Solaris.
    > What this says to me is more frequent Solaris releases.


    No, what it means if more features releases with MUs and
    hardware revision releases.

    > Given that they typically only support the last 3 versions (7,8,9 at present)


    You might want to check that.

    > this is going to end up forcing the hands of some of their corporate customers.


    I fail to see how.

    > I work in an environment where it typically takes us 18 months to certify
    > a major OS release as releaseworthy and build a standardised hardened build.


    When you're dealing with Microsoft I don't blame you.

    > If Sun bring their product release schedule sufficiently far ahead that we
    > are certifying obsolete software then we are going to inevatably have to look
    > to another vendor with more software stability for a long term view,


    Well, don't look to Microsoft.

    > as we will *not* upgrade every machine in the estate (500+ in my bit of it,
    > 6000+ in the whole company) every 18 months just because a vendor wants to
    > add new shiny bits to the OS.


    What a strange regime you operate in.

    > If my company were to stop buying Solaris running systems then I suspect
    > this would hurt Sun a lot. I believe that a lot of major corporates are in
    > our situation.


    I doubt it. A lot would welcome new features.

    > The point of this rant? Sun are a good software company. Their hardware is
    > only so-so these days, and has been getting more so for years.


    As I revealed, this is only with the PC quality stuff. The real
    stuff is still excellent.

    > If they decide to force the hands of their customers then they can be as
    > good as they want - they will not sell product.


    That's merely conjecture on your part. If we take Microsoft's
    crud as the perfect example, it hasn't hurt them one bit.

    -am 2003

  2. Re: Newisys AMD x86-64 servers

    Anthony Mandic wrote:

    > Paul S Brown wrote:
    >
    >> I know this is a Sparc/Solaris newsgroup, but sometimes the antipathy
    >> towards x86 boxes gets a bit puerile.

    >
    > Puerile huh? That's too big a word for the Wintel/Lintel kiddies
    > to assimilate. However, it doesn't stop them acting like trolls,
    > retards, arsewipes and other assorted dickheads by crossposting to
    > inappropriate newsgroups trying to start a flame war.


    Ah - abuse. Always good to see.

    As for Wintel/Lintel? Me? I don't think so. My first UNIX box was a Sun 386i
    followed by an IPC - I use PC hardware because I can actually afford it at
    a reasonable cost, no other reason. I have an Ultra 2 desktop, but
    SparcBooks aren't anywhere near my price range, so I have an x86 notebook.
    I don't run Windows as a matter of course and other than that run any OS
    that happens to suit.

    >
    >> Assuming that Sun has some overriding technical superiority and will
    >> conquer all is a fallacy. Their hardware has gone from being completely
    >> bulletproof (SS20, 3/480 etc) to more than a little problematic (Ultra
    >> 5/10/30/60 - all with build quality issues).

    >
    > Its funny you should mention the Ultra 5 and 10 et al. Its also
    > funny that you don't mention why they are problematic. So I'll
    > mention why. Its because they has puissant PC peripherals in them.
    > Whack in IDE drives and controllers, PC-type memory, PCI bus
    > crapola, etc., etc., etc. and watch the quality go down the tube.
    > Welcome to the wonderful world of quality PC hardware.


    Let's see

    IDE drives - no argument about them being crap.

    PC Type memory - not really an issue, PC type memory goes from the 30 pin
    stuff (used in the IPC/SS2) through 72 pin stuff (used in the
    IPX/Classic/LX) up to ECC Chipkill stuff that's actually better than the
    stuff Sun use.

    PCI Bus - you've just argued that every current Sun is using a substandard
    bus and by association somebody has made an enormous booboo in strategy.
    I'll agree that SBus was a nice bus from an installation point of view and
    I would have preferred Sun to have continued it, but that's not the way
    things worked.

    The using of PC type busses doesn't actually account for the build quality
    problems I have encountered which have typically been PSUs blowing and
    motherboards delaminating. This comes down to poor QA and build specs, not
    the busses and memory being used.



    >> Given that they typically only support the last 3 versions (7,8,9 at
    >> present)

    >
    > You might want to check that.


    I have Solaris 2.6 going out of support in 6 days. At that point only 7,8
    and 9 will be supported.

    >
    >> this is going to end up forcing the hands of some of their corporate
    >> customers.

    >
    > I fail to see how.


    Major companies can't afford to be running out of support software on
    business critical systems which have volatile application loads. As a
    result when the OS goes out of support they have to upgrade it. This is a
    pattern I have seen in several major bluechips. If you increase the
    obsolescence rate then you by association increase the frequency of OS
    updates.

    >
    >> I work in an environment where it typically takes us 18 months to certify
    >> a major OS release as releaseworthy and build a standardised hardened
    >> build.

    >
    > When you're dealing with Microsoft I don't blame you.


    Who said anything about Microsoft? My environment is 500 or so Sun systems
    and 2 Wintel machines. It takes us that long to turn around a hardened
    Solaris build suitable for 15 different platforms and in line with group
    policy.

    >
    >> If Sun bring their product release schedule sufficiently far ahead that
    >> we are certifying obsolete software then we are going to inevatably have
    >> to look to another vendor with more software stability for a long term
    >> view,

    >
    > Well, don't look to Microsoft.


    We wouldn't be - IBM would be most likely at the moment given that HP would
    require several hardware upgrades let alone software in the next few years.

    >


    >> as we will *not* upgrade every machine in the estate (500+ in my bit of
    >> it, 6000+ in the whole company) every 18 months just because a vendor
    >> wants to add new shiny bits to the OS.

    >
    > What a strange regime you operate in.


    Yes, one in which we need business critical systems to be supported by the
    vendors. The number of times Sun turn around and go "Out of patch - no
    support " is not funny.

    >
    >> If my company were to stop buying Solaris running systems then I suspect
    >> this would hurt Sun a lot. I believe that a lot of major corporates are
    >> in our situation.

    >
    > I doubt it. A lot would welcome new features.


    If the features were genuinely worth having then yes. However across an
    organisation such as the one I operate in the additional training
    requirements to manage the new features would stop them being employed in
    any short timescale.

    >
    >> The point of this rant? Sun are a good software company. Their hardware
    >> is only so-so these days, and has been getting more so for years.

    >
    > As I revealed, this is only with the PC quality stuff. The real
    > stuff is still excellent.


    eCache fault on E10k.
    64bit bug on UltraSparc 1
    Disk quality problems on Sun sourced (SCSI) hard drives

    I have a list of other faults on high end hardware (E3500 - E10k systems),
    none of which should have happened.

    I am seeing quality dropping off across the range. This may have been a
    blip, but it's a 5 year blip so far.

    >
    >> If they decide to force the hands of their customers then they can be as
    >> good as they want - they will not sell product.

    >
    > That's merely conjecture on your part. If we take Microsoft's
    > crud as the perfect example, it hasn't hurt them one bit.


    Actually it has. Microsoft Licensing 6 caused a massive backlash and
    seriously hurt their sales figures, by trying to force their customers
    hands.

    I can obviously only speak for my environmnet, but if we end up with a
    platform we can't support then we will have to look at a different vendor
    who have a supportable platform. This will not be Microsoft.

    P.

+ Reply to Thread