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 gi
...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 using cooking a pizza in 3 minutes by using 4 ovens whose combined temperature is 2000F.
Google's experiments with lowering their energy cost by moving their servers is not a good long term solution and their 'throw PCs at it' will only work up to a point. Consider the I^2R loss in the cables between PCs, consider the heat generated by 1000 power supplies (even if each is 95% efficient!) Consider that the bottleneck in many applications is throughput, but you have thousands of CPUs idling hot while they're waiting for I/O.
--- Linux || Windows +X86 is not the solution to every problem, but when all you know is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
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 gi
Re:What does Oracle want from Sun? (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 using cooking a pizza in 3 minutes by using 4 ovens whose combined temperature is 2000F.
Google's experiments with lowering their energy cost by moving their servers is not a good long term solution and their 'throw PCs at it' will only work up to a point. Consider the I^2R loss in the cables between PCs, consider the heat generated by 1000 power supplies (even if each is 95% efficient!) Consider that the bottleneck in many applications is throughput, but you have thousands of CPUs idling hot while they're waiting for I/O.
--- Linux || Windows +X86 is not the solution to every problem, but when all you know is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
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