If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?
My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the
last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun
Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use
consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent
2008 book Planet Google [amazon.com] describes Google's experiences on page 54:
"For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176
microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This
compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a
well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory,
and about the same amount of disk space."
It's true that Sun hardware is more reliable than consumer-grade hardware. However, neither are completely reliable. Both require fault-tolerant software. Also, consumer-grade hardware has become very reliable.
I am sure Google made the right decision. I am also sure, however, that an 8-way MP computer with loads of contiguous RAM will excel at some tasks where a cluster will not. A cluster is not always a direct replacement for a Sun M8000. Each has its uses and its rightful place in IT.
HP bought EDS, EDS sells a lot of Sun hardware. By purchasing Sun hardware business, HP can satisfy EDS clients while maintaining a broad profit margin.
Not all companies are as 'with it' as Google and many subscribe to the 90's-ism, 'The Internet runs on Sun'.
There is still a lot of money to be made selling Sun servers and that is a BIG reason that Sun failed to commit to 'commodity' processors
...My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the
last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun
Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use
consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant...
You'll note that Google started building their cluster when oil was roughly $10/bbl and only the Sierra club and Greenpeace were concerned about global warming. Oil rose to more than $150/bbl, it's currently headed upwards of $70 and many countries (including the U.S.) are considering carbon taxes. Sun made a wise investment in Niagara chip multithread processors. No one else comes close to their throughput/watt and using a cluster of X86 boxes where your application needs throughput computing is like
You said, "No one else comes close to their [Sun]
throughput/watt..." Could you supply some evidence of that?
You said, "Consider the I^2R loss in the cables between PCs,..." The resistive loss is trivial, because the current is very small.
You said, "... consider the heat generated by 1000 power
supplies..." Google does not use separate power supplies for each
computer. Also, the power supply loss is the same, per watt of delivered
power. Sun and Google both have highly
COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from
a corporation whose president codes in octal.
-- J.N. Gray
What does Oracle want from Sun? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?
My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent 2008 book Planet Google [amazon.com] describes Google's experiences on page 54: "For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space."
It's true that Sun hardware is more reliable than consumer-grade hardware. However, neither are completely reliable. Both require fault-tolerant software. Also, consumer-grade hardware has become very reliable.
Re: (Score:1)
If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?
I'm guessing all the Java stuff ... and MySql.
Re:What does Oracle want from Sun? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure Google made the right decision. I am also sure, however, that an 8-way MP computer with loads of contiguous RAM will excel at some tasks where a cluster will not. A cluster is not always a direct replacement for a Sun M8000. Each has its uses and its rightful place in IT.
Where? (Score:2)
rtfa (Score:1)
Synopsis from the article...
HP bought EDS, EDS sells a lot of Sun hardware. By purchasing Sun hardware business, HP can satisfy EDS clients while maintaining a broad profit margin.
Not all companies are as 'with it' as Google and many subscribe to the 90's-ism, 'The Internet runs on Sun'.
There is still a lot of money to be made selling Sun servers and that is a BIG reason that Sun failed to commit to 'commodity' processors
Re: (Score:2)
...My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant...
You'll note that Google started building their cluster when oil was roughly $10/bbl and only the Sierra club and Greenpeace were concerned about global warming. Oil rose to more than $150/bbl, it's currently headed upwards of $70 and many countries (including the U.S.) are considering carbon taxes. Sun made a wise investment in Niagara chip multithread processors. No one else comes close to their throughput/watt and using a cluster of X86 boxes where your application needs throughput computing is like
Questions: (Score:2)
You said, "No one else comes close to their [Sun] throughput/watt..." Could you supply some evidence of that?
You said, "Consider the I^2R loss in the cables between PCs,
You said, "... consider the heat generated by 1000 power supplies..." Google does not use separate power supplies for each computer. Also, the power supply loss is the same, per watt of delivered power. Sun and Google both have highly