Double Checking Sun's Reality Check

Double Checking Sun's Reality Check

Post by KillDarre » Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:06:26



Recently (I think it was yesterday) I saw a post by someone wondering
about an article from Sun lambasting the running of Linux on the z800. I
found this excellent refutation by Moshe Bar who also explains how he got
Linux S/390 running on his own personal box. An interesting read just for
that bit, I think.

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7030/byt1015006951867/0304_moshe.html

Quote:
"Sun's article also says that Linux is really designed for the PC
architecture (ostensibly, the x86) and not for other platforms such as the
mainframe's S/390. And another argument against Linux on the mainframe is
that the Linux virtual memory manager is not suited to run within a
virtual computer like z/VM because its generous allocation of buffer cache
conflicts with I/O buffers already allocated by z/VM for its guest OS.

"That is pure nonsense. In the 2.4 kernels, buffer cache utilization is
much lower than in previous versions; most stuff goes into the page cache.
Actual paging for most commercial applications is close to zero. RAM is
cheap and abundant. In many years of consulting I have yet to see a
production-duty Linux server paging in any significant amount. Add to that
z/VM's capability to restrict the RAM allocated to the guest machine and
Sun's argument becomes null and void."

 
 
 

Double Checking Sun's Reality Check

Post by Amaz » Thu, 07 Mar 2002 21:15:31



> Recently (I think it was yesterday) I saw a post by someone wondering
> about an article from Sun lambasting the running of Linux on the z800. I
> found this excellent refutation by Moshe Bar who also explains how he got
> Linux S/390 running on his own personal box. An interesting read just for
> that bit, I think.

> http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7030/byt1015006951867/0304_moshe.html

Considering the time and money Sun spent on Solaris, I can see how some of
their execs wouldn't want to play the Linux card whole-heartedly.  It still
looks bad to cast FUD on a product in which you'vre recently "claimed" to
support.  Hell, Tux was sitting on their home page for a while.  It'll be
kind of fun to watch their balancing act though.

--
The breakfast of champions is opposition

 
 
 

Double Checking Sun's Reality Check

Post by Joe Potte » Thu, 07 Mar 2002 23:11:42




>> Recently (I think it was yesterday) I saw a post by
>> someone wondering about an article from Sun lambasting
>> the running of Linux on the z800. I found this excellent
>> refutation by Moshe Bar who also explains how he got
>> Linux S/390 running on his own personal box. An
>> interesting read just for that bit, I think.

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7030/byt1015006951867/0304_moshe.html

Quote:

> Considering the time and money Sun spent on Solaris, I can
> see how some of
> their execs wouldn't want to play the Linux card
> whole-heartedly.  It still looks bad to cast FUD on a
> product in which you'vre recently "claimed" to
> support.  Hell, Tux was sitting on their home page for a
> while.  It'll be kind of fun to watch their balancing act
> though.

Business politics is hell. (some general said that, eh?)

--
Regards, Joe

 
 
 

Double Checking Sun's Reality Check

Post by Shane Phelp » Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:30:16




> > Recently (I think it was yesterday) I saw a post by someone wondering
> > about an article from Sun lambasting the running of Linux on the z800. I
> > found this excellent refutation by Moshe Bar who also explains how he got
> > Linux S/390 running on his own personal box. An interesting read just for
> > that bit, I think.

> > http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7030/byt1015006951867/0304_moshe.html

> Considering the time and money Sun spent on Solaris, I can see how some of
> their execs wouldn't want to play the Linux card whole-heartedly.  It still
> looks bad to cast FUD on a product in which you'vre recently "claimed" to
> support.  Hell, Tux was sitting on their home page for a while.  It'll be
> kind of fun to watch their balancing act though.

> --
> The breakfast of champions is opposition

Sun was actually aiming that particular shot at IBM, not Linux.
Sun's strategy is to scale up on the big stuff (Solaris has very good SMP)
and use lots of low-end boxes for scaling out (the Netra X1 is a 1 RU rack-
mount server at a PC price), whereas IBM is scaling out on the big stuff
with multiple VMs running Linux.
Domains on Sun's E10000 need a minimum of 1 board (2 CPUs), so Sun can't
play the same game as IBM.

Sun's work on StarOffice / OpenOffice will probably do more for the general
acceptance of Linux by big biz than IBM's zOS port. I don't like the rumour
about StarOffice only being free (as in beer) on Solaris in future, though.
A better move would be to offer support contracts and include StarOffice
support in the general Solaris support.

 
 
 

Double Checking Sun's Reality Check

Post by Kenneth Down » Fri, 08 Mar 2002 03:36:42



> Recently (I think it was yesterday) I saw a post by someone wondering
> about an article from Sun lambasting the running of Linux on the z800. I
> found this excellent refutation by Moshe Bar who also explains how he got
> Linux S/390 running on his own personal box. An interesting read just for
> that bit, I think.

> http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7030/byt1015006951867/0304_moshe.html

> Quote:
> "Sun's article also says that Linux is really designed for the PC
> architecture (ostensibly, the x86) and not for other platforms such as the
> mainframe's S/390. And another argument against Linux on the mainframe is
> that the Linux virtual memory manager is not suited to run within a
> virtual computer like z/VM because its generous allocation of buffer cache
> conflicts with I/O buffers already allocated by z/VM for its guest OS.

> "That is pure nonsense. In the 2.4 kernels, buffer cache utilization is
> much lower than in previous versions; most stuff goes into the page cache.
> Actual paging for most commercial applications is close to zero. RAM is
> cheap and abundant. In many years of consulting I have yet to see a
> production-duty Linux server paging in any significant amount. Add to that
> z/VM's capability to restrict the RAM allocated to the guest machine and
> Sun's argument becomes null and void."

Moshe usually comes up with good stuff.  Recommended reading.  Though ole
JP seems to make less sense as the years go by.

--
Ken
Linux, the more you learn, the more you love

 
 
 

1. Always check and double check

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

You've made several false assumptions above..

How hard it is to recover and rebuild data is directly dependent on how
important the data is, and how mean to you the client will be if you lose
any of it, and how much time you have to be bothered by it all..

Therefore, no matter what you checked or tested, the outcome would still
be the same if its really important data, a really nasty inclined client,
and you have to catch a plane in an hour.

2. Solaris Boot Using NT boot loader?

3. 2.3 install check script doesn't check

4. skype and NAT

5. I had a reality check today :(

6. MGR

7. OpenVMS and OE MVS - reality check

8. LONGSHINE LCS6633 adapter?

9. Reality Check (re 16450 UART)

10. Cold feet or Reality Check?

11. Reality check.

12. Reality check: 8MB, Linux, and Internet

13. Reality Check