Linux in high cost machine?????
 

I have read a book named Linux deployment. But it was written in Desember 1999. It said that Linux only could compete with Windows in small to middle range business. But with large scale competing with AIX, Solaris, and etc...... Linux is looser because we don't have that high cost machine to experiment with Linux. Is it true???? So people still prefer AIX, Unix, Solaris, HP*** if they play with high cost machine........ than Linux.

Today is 2004...... Is the condition the same or has change????

quite interesting question.. please.. answer please.. anybody????????

It was true in '99, but it's not true any more. Red Hat has a very cozy arrangement with IBM to port RHL to very, very high-end IBM machines. I recently was at a site where they were running RHL on an IBM the size of three 19" racks, fully loaded (and it was one machine... Z series IIRC). Some version of Linux also run on blade systems, now (primarily Red Hat, I believe--also on IBM hardware).

In addition, with the advent of AMD64/IA-64 CPU architectures (and BSD + Linux being ported to the new arch) Intel clones are much, much closer to compeating with traditional RISC UNIX boxen. I've seen several companies ditch their expensive Sun hardware in favor of Intel-clone hardware running Linux, because the hardware cost for performance was much, much better.

HP has already dropped PA-RISC and Alpha and they're trying to move to Itanium (joint project with Intel), but at this point it looks like a multi-billion dollar disaster. HP is hedging with server lines built on AMD64 chips and Intel is scrambling to roll out a 64-bit extension to their 32-bit arch that will mimic AMD (supposedly Intel even reverse engineered the AMD specs, which is full-circle from when AMD was furiously reversing Intel's stuff in the mid '90s).

Sun just dropped two of the CPU families they had under development to concentrate on a single path for future CPU production. At the same time they're brining in AMD64 machines at their "low-end" to compliment their own offering. You know it's a dark day for traditional chip-makers when Sun adopts basically an extended Intel architecture in it's low-end offerings (well OK, they did similar with RaQ servers but unlike those, the AMD64 boxen are actually selling).

Any way, IBM likes to point out that a huge portion of the world's computing power is still held by existing mainframes, but their time is ending pretty fast. With rapid advances in SMP and clustering technology in both BSD and Linux, blade systems and clusters are more and more attractive as replacements for huge, static servers.

It looks to me very much like Sun won't be the company as we know it in 10 years. Either it will not be able to adapt and it will die, or it will make some very radical changes to clearly position it's cost/benefit proposition. IBM is clearly putting a lot of it's strategic eggs in the Linux basket, and assuming the SCO cases turn out like everyone expects, that's probably a very "Good Thing(tm)" for IBM. Red Hat looks to do well by their cooperation with IBM. HP is also starting to embrace Linux and they had already decided to migrate to Intel CPU architectures (the question is, which one?) so they've already made that choice.

The funny thing is, all the predictions of Bill Gates and the Intel guy (name escapes me at the moment) seem to be coming true (ubiquitous hardware running common software replacing proprietary systems with unique OSs), but instead of MS and Intel benefiting, it's the Linux vendors (and their friends) and AMD! How's that for a twist of irony?

LOL.

I disagree, though. I don't see AMD64 as a more serious challenge to Intel than the original Athlon back in '99. At the moment there's a lot of hype about 64-bit, but Intel is (I think wisely) banking on 32-bit computing for a while yet. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Socket 775 Prescott has a hidden 64-bit functionality in case their current strategy fails to curb AMD's hype. Something like HTT that is suddenly released a year after the fact.

melinda_sayang: i feel linux can compete with windows in almost every environment these days (except pervades design, as everyone seems to say theres no good CAD programs for linux like there are in windows)

64-bit CPU's i think wont be used overly all that much, as right now AMD64 CPU's cost a few hundred dollars, even up to around $800 per chip, so only big cooperations might use it, in a few years tho when the price falls to $200 (hopefully less) for less for good 64-bit processors, a lot more small businesses might use them, and certainly a lot of home users/gamers

Well, we're looking at this from the enterprise perspective, right? Who cares about home users, gamers, etc... AMD is not compeating for Dell desktops with the AMD64 arch, they're compeating for SPARC replacements, PA-RISC replacements, etc. Intel was banking on Itanium for 64-bit replacement to the aforemention archs, but Itanium is not catching on like they hoped. That's why Intel is pretty much stuck on 32-bit computing right now, because they never planned to extend their 32-bit line to 64-bits like AMD did (just by expanding on the existing instructions). Intel wanted a totally new instruction set for 64-bit computing, but developers didn't want to rewrite all their tools to support it and OS vendors didn't either (Microsoft, for instance was very late in bringing out a Itanium-compatible Windows).

When you're talking the difference between a quad-Opteron box for say, $6,000 (rough estimate) vs. a Sun SPARC box for say, $15,000, AMD64 absolutely does make sense. Some chips just weren't designed for SMP processing, such as the 32-bit Intel-clone designs, but the Opteron has much more effecient use of memory when using 4 or more CPUs on a single board.

So just remember, even though AMD is releasing some 64-bit CPUs for workstations (doing things like graphic rendering, it would make sense) the main focus is on low-mid range servers and clustering. Given the number of server vendors that have brought on AMD64 offerings (even HP, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars working on the compeating design with Intel!), and the lack of market penetration for Itanium... Well, Intel missed the boat. That's why Intel is scrambling to add 64-bit extensions to their exiting 32-bit designs in order to keep up with AMD.

My university has a super computer running on an SGI box. Here are a couple of links to the SGI box: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news...le.php/1565121 and http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34556_p.htm .

But since Windows does not run on a super computer (does it?), I guess you cannot say linux is competing with it :^)

SGI has some seriously nice machines running redhat, they are the intel itanium 2 chips, and they just finished a graphics system for it that is the equivalent of the Origin graphic systems that run Irix and have some serious performace. The shared memory bandwidth is pretty impressive as well. Read this article, it will explain it all better and more throughly then i really care to.....here's two links, one to a technical article, and one to an article about SGI's clients, respectively.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news...le.php/1565121

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-5094162.html

If there is any question as to whether or not Linux can scale, consider that both Amazon and Google run on Linux. Case closed. -- J.W.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=amazon.com

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=google.com

The debate wasn't really about clustering, it was about running on "big iron" type servers, i.e. proprietary mainframes and other high-end servers.

I'm pretty sure that google would be running a number of high end servers. :)

Is IBM's e-server considered high-end?

I work in an environment where we have SuSE SLES7 running in multiple z/VM partitions on an Amdahl mainframe running os/390. Linux runs fine on Enterprise hardware, have no doubt about it. The VM technology that IBM and others began 20 years ago is finally rearing its head again in creating virutal linux servers that can access as many or as few mainframe CPU's and as much or as little DASD as you want. You can literally have thousands of fully functioning linux servers running in z/VM on os/390. The only drawback is of course software costs. That's where they always get you. The Hardware is typically only 15-20% of the total cost. The software contracts that charge you based on MIPS used, number of CPU's that the z/VM *can* access (not will access), etc are all big $$$ issues when dealing with big iron. If you have a 1500MIP mainframe loaded out with 12 CPU's, you best break out your wallet. Most of the players involved with linux on os/390 are Maris University, IBM, Suse, Debian and a couple of other smaller shops. And performance wise, it *definitly* competes with other operating systems ... just my $.02 ...

- Jim

Large Linux
 

As the others said it is not true now for sometime.
Have you heard of Oracle RAC Systems for example?
Real Application Clusters.
The Big War is between Wintel and Lintel.
Similar Intel Blade Systems With Windows 2003 or Linux.

Who indeed!? There is more than one perspective to enterprise. I remember that a lot of these big companies got started in someone's home. Forget about home users, eh? I wouldn't count them out at all. While the majority are seeingly of no consequences, there will be a few that will build enterprising businesses out of their homes with home desktop PC's by gather together old boxes many other homes are discarding, and build clustering networks with Linux. Low overhead for the home entreprenuar.

And if some of them happen to be advid gamers, well then they have enough processing power to design their own games, make movies for their games, and so forth. Sooner or later someone is going to do it. It only takes one decent game to bring in the dough for futhering their venture into a more comfortible way of continuing their favorite hobby. I say hobby, for when one really enjoys what they are doing, and get big bucks for doing it, it really isn't work. It is play for pay.

Nope, I wouldn't count out the Home User or Gamer The entreprenuar has Enterprise on the brain. I would say Enterprise is a frame of mind that has led to many successful businesses, and products, that carry enterprise in their name. Anyone remember where HP and Apple started? At home and in a garage, both of them. LOL Just playing devil's advocate on this reply. LOL

:Pengy::Pengy: Linux gives power back to the user. Long Live Linux!! :Pengy: :Pengy: