I was talking about sun's blog. It's very sad you have problems with obvious things.
Originally Posted by kebabbert
He did FUD according to Linux dev response. I also consider he did FUD. He wasn't correct saying Linux scales bad. Linux dev said Linux scales crap out of Solaris, so I believe him. You're still lying: "The biggest Linux SMP server is 8 cpus, as I know. There are no bigger, as I know." You gave a SAP paper where there's a 48 core SMP Linux system, so you knew about this, so you're lying.
Bonwick (the creator of ZFS) did not FUD. He said that Linux scales bad, and he is correct. He talked about SMP vs HPC. And there are no big Linux SMP servers. The biggest Linux SMP server is 8 cpus, as I know. There are no bigger, as I know. Why is that? Because Linux is bad on SMP servers. Show me a SMP server with more than 8 cpus, if you can. Go ahead.
Like I said before.
Basically SMP is one big server with as many as 64 cpus. IBM AIX and HP-UX and Solaris servers are SMP servers with 64 cpus. IBM biggest Unix box, has only 32 POWER7 cpus because IBM AIX does not scale well enough in SMP servers.
There's even bigger - 2048 core machine and the funny thing a single Linux kernel is running on it.
HPC is a large cluster (a network with lots of PCs) and Linux scales very good on a cluster. There are large clusters, for instance SGI Altix server with 1024 cores. But it is easy to scale on a cluster.
You're data is very old. You're still talking about Linux 2.4.
When people say Linux scales bad, they are refering to SMP servers that are used in the Enterprise. There are no big SMP servers running Linux successfully. There are only Linux clusters in the market today.
The same as above.
Even Linux scaling experts from RedHat, etc said that Linux scales very well in a cluster (for instance, Google has 10.000 nodes in a network) but they also admitted that Linux scales bad on SMP servers. They said "the true strength of Linux is horizontal scaling" and they talked about Google's big cluster. You want to see the article by the Linux scaling experts from RedHat, and other Linux companies?
Oh, there are. Like those in SAP benchmarks. Btw. do you have any info about market share?
Why are there no big SMP Linux servers on the market? Because Linux scales bad on SMP servers. The SMP server market belongs to Enterprise Unix: AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, IBM Mainframes, etc.
So, you were lying saying I didn't show you the papers? If you're aware such comparision is meaningles then why are you doing the same regarding SMP scaling?
I am talking about RESEARCH papers. You showed White papers. I can show you white paper where Microsoft says that Linux is much more expensive than Windows. The reason? Linux is run on an IBM Mainframe costing million dollars, and Windows is run on a PC, but this fact is hidden and I had to dig to find this fact.
I corrected myself later saying I was according to h-online.
Nope, you did not say that. You dont remember what you said? There were lot of people explaining that Solaris servers where sold with 106 cpus, and 144 cpus and still you rejected all of us and you stubbornly said:
"...Solaris can scale only up to 64 physical CPUs on a single machine while Linux can scale up to 4096 physical CPUs. I don't care about hyper threading etc. I also don't care I could buy a [Solaris] 106 CPUs server years ago and I don't care how many threads Solaris sees..."
Still, an old data.
There is no research on this, as I know of. But I have many times explained the difference between scaling on a single huge server (HPC) and scaling on a cluster. Linux scales very well in a cluster, everyone agrees on this. But Linux scales bad on a SMP server, even RedHat scaling experts agree on this.
Like before, there's even one in your SAP papers 48 cores SMP Linux machine.
If Linux scales well on a SMP server, as you claim: show me a big Linux SMP server that is sold on the market. SMP servers are traditionally for Enterprise use and they cost very much. For instance, IBMs AIX server P595 costed 35 million USD when they got the TPC-C record earlier (until Oracle took the record). If Linux scales good on a single huge server, then everyone should buy cheap Linux SMP servers instead of forcing to buy expensive gear from IBM, HP, Oracle. So, where is the Linux SMP servers with 32 cpus? Show me. There are none. Why?
I probably rejected your idiotic conclusions.
I have showed you white papers earlier, and you rejected my white papers.
Show me I was talking about research papers and not about white papers.
I also showed you research papers, PhD thesis, etc. You have never showed me any research papers. If you did, link to that post here, and I will apologize. Go ahead, show me the post where you link to research papers. If you can not post such a link, then I am talking truth, and it is you that is the liar.
I wanted papers which backup your claims like I said many times. However, you lie a lot.
I did not FUD, nor lie. I posted lot of research papers, but you denied them to exist. I can link to posts where I post research papers, and where you just ignored them. Do you want me to link to those posts? You say something like "no, there are no research papers, where are them, show me the papers". And I have posted those research papers repeatedly, but still you deny them.
Go ahead and show me the papers which proves your claims.
You pretended to not see all the research papers I posted to. I am not lying, you just ignored my posts and asked me to post research papers. Do you want me to quote you on this?
What research? Every research paper I posted here, are the same I posted in the old thread. There are no new research papers in this thread. It is the same research papers I posted again and again. I have not looked for new research papers, it is the same old papers I always posted (that you ignored).