x86 costs and the switch to Linux [LWN.net]

x86 costs and the switch to Linux

Posted Nov 13, 2009 16:50 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)
Parent article: Notes from the LF End User Summit

I recently figured out that modern x86 cores at >2 GHz get about 6 times as much work done as an older SPARC CPU at 900 MHz (for a particular workload) - this is an older model CPU, but representative of what's installed at many sites.

This means you could replace a 144 CPU SPARC server, which must have cost $500,000 at least, with a 24 core x86 server giving the same throughput - one server from HP (quad Xeon, 6 core processors) is priced at $20,000. In the current economic situation, this is amazingly attractive for any new deployments - you may even find the old hardware's annual maintenance is more than the cost of the new hardware, so it's worth the hassle of switching an existing server.

Of course, your mileage may vary, and this ignores disk I/O, reliability features, etc - but you can get resilience through clustering these days, by buying two or three of these servers.

The only real options on x86 are Linux and Windows, in terms of what major corporations will specify and major ISVs will support (I know Solaris x86 exists, but how many people really use this compared to Linux?). Many companies who have used Unix for decades are far more comfortable with Linux than Windows for mission critical software, and their applications will port easily to Linux.

This is probably why I'm seeing a huge upsurge this year of enterprises that are specifying Linux for formerly Unix only applications. Far more of an uptick in switching to Linux than in the post-dotcom downturn.

(Log in to post comments)

x86 costs and the switch to Linux

Posted Nov 16, 2009 7:19 UTC (Mon) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]

Interesting, but that's surely a sign of desperation to make some sales and doesn't change the fundamental economics. If HP/Dell can profitably sell a $20K Intel server at that equates to 144 SPARC CPUs of some years ago, Sun can't keep on discounting forever.

Of course, Sun does sell x86 servers a lot these days, but I couldn't find a 24 core Xeon server on their website yet, and once a company has a choice of x86 vendors they won't only look at Sun.

x86 costs and the switch to Linux

Posted Nov 19, 2009 20:28 UTC (Thu) by harlekyn (guest, #9207) [Link]

Seems you under-estimate the Sun portfolio.

The X4440 is a 4 socket AMD server and supports up to 24 cores: http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4440/

The Intel equivalent is the X4450: http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4450/

But you'd rather want to get a Nehalem-powered Intel box. Only available as dual-sockets at the moment, they still give the Dunnington a run for its money. An example would be the Sun X4270: http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4270/

x86 costs and the switch to Linux

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:07 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

you missed their X4600 8 socket AMD server listed as supporting up to 32 cores: http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4600/index.xml

x86 costs and the switch to Linux

Posted Nov 19, 2009 21:58 UTC (Thu) by harlekyn (guest, #9207) [Link]

At least from a CPU performance perspective, it's about as fast as the newer system with four hexa-cores. AMD has not only added 2 more cores, but added further optimizations to the chip (e.g. an improved snoop filter).

Sun Fire X4600 M2 (AMD Opteron 8384 2.7GHz), 32 cores: 386 SPECint_rate2006
Sun Fire X4440 (AMD Opteron 8435 2.6GHz), 24 cores: 377 SPECint_rate2006

For the time being, you only have to get the 8-socket X4600 M2 if you need more than 256 GB of memory in a single box. Once AMD releases the hexa-cores for the 8-socket boxes, there's one more compelling reason. Such a 48-core box sounds...sweet :)