![Sun Microsystems Sun Microsystems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsun.gif)
![Hardware Hardware](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/hardware_64.png)
Sun Open-Sourcing UltraSPARC Design 250
AKAImBatman writes "While everyone was busy with the holiday season, Sun Microsystems quietly announced the start of the OpenSPARC project. Unlike previous CPUs that were based on the "Open" SPARC specifications (such as LEON), Sun is releasing the complete Verilog source code to their latest and greatest microprocessor. Their current time frame for releasing the source code to the public is in March of 2006. Given their success with the OpenSolaris project, it seems that this is likely to be more than just vaporware. So get out your Virtex FPGAs and your Verilog compilers, and let's get ready to hack some hardware!"
Pardon my ignorance... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:5, Informative)
FPGAs are key (Score:3, Interesting)
I've worked with stuff from Xilinx [xilinx.com] and it's pretty impressive.
The other bonus to this is that you can take the Verilog or VHDL langauge (used to write hardware) and simulate it with great accuracy.
Re:FPGAs are key (Score:2)
Re:FPGAs are key (Score:5, Informative)
1) The ASIC runs at 1GHz+ frequency, the V4 implementation would run around 300MHz at best and cost over $10k for the FPGA alone.
2) Most FPGAs block-RAM and LUT-based RAM can be dual-ported at most, this is problematic for register files where a dozen registers may be concurrently accessed during any given cycle. This would require either register duplication or time-multiplexed register access and a corresponding down-clocking of everything else.
3) Logic is expended pretty fast if you do stuff like 64x64 multipliers using logic only. Sure, there are dedicated multipliers in most modern low-cost FPGAs but these are hard-wired to handle DSP-centric MAC operations.
4) People are upset with desktop CPU's power usage but building similar CPUs on FPGAs would require many times more power to achieve the same performance since FPGA's switch fabric and general-purpose programmable elements have way more parasitic capacitance than ASICs' internal hard-wired traces and circuits. With ASIC, 1M logic gates is only ~6M transistors but a ~1M gate-equivalent FPGA with switch fabric and configuration bits goes beyond 50M transistors with much longer routing delays.
FPGAs are not particularly suitable for general-purpose processing where the system has extensive subsystem interdependencies and shared elements. Where they can truly shine is in applications where the data flow is mostly regular and where processing can be broken down into well-defined self-contained stages like telecom, crypto and DSP. Another area where FPGAs can shine is hard-realtime where they can have dedicated logic to handle time-critical events with 100% deterministic deadlines, unlike modern CPUs and OSes where realtime applications have to put up with unpredictable branch mispredicts, cache misses, preemption, out-of-order execution, etc.
That said, the UltraSPARC's verilog source should make for really interesting reading for logic and digital system engineers and academics like myself. This move makes a lot of sense: CPU designers need to hire new talent and this new talent needs to learn about common practice in real-world designs to be of any use or they'll spend most of their first months just catching up. With a real-world design in the wild, CPU-designer job postings could ask people to specify which architectural components they would like to improve and the interviews could steer towards presenting those improvements instead of often irrelevant technicalities.
Re:FPGAs are key (Score:3, Interesting)
I've worked a little with some of
Extremely Practical (Score:2)
For 200 bucks you can stuck the code of a CPU ( and perhaps more, if you choose something small ) on it. ( more $ gets you more speed and useable 'space', but 200 for a starter kit is more then enough to answer your question )
And if you got the cash, ASIC is always an option too.
Re:FPGAs aren't where it's at (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:5, Informative)
too far? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:too far? (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I understand of patent law, if someone else wants to distribute hardware, they'll still need to get patent licenses.
IOW, Sun is becoming an IP company of a rare sort.
Re:too far? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.leox.org/docs/faq_MLleon.html [leox.org]
Re:too far? (Score:2)
Re:too far? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dennis Clarke
http://www.blastwave.org/ [blastwave.org]
Re:too far? (Score:2)
The question is will they conti
Re:too far? (Score:2)
You forgot one important thing..
Re:too far? (Score:2)
It reduces concern over what will happen if they die. The larger customers can have their own chips fabbed if absoloutely necessary. It also allows people to customize the chips. For example, MIPS is popular because it can be customized in this way.
"The only people that would benefit from this would be their competitors."
How many competitors use SPARC?
Re:too far? (Score:2)
Their previous stance in the market isn't sustainable anymore. People are buying more commodity hardware over propriet
Re:too far? (Score:4, Informative)
Niagra is a real leapfrog forwards, though, assuming it performs in people's real world applications environments as fast as it does in benchmarks. For workloads which are thread partitionable (large numbers of parallel processes, like apache, a java web applications server, etc) it acts much closer to a SMP multiprocessor server with something like 32 cores than either an Intel hyperthreading or HT/multicore, or AMD multicore CPU.
See the T-1000 benchmarks [sun.com] page.
Paraphrasing from that...
The single CPU 1 GHz 8-core T1000 system hs about 3x faster on SPECweb than dual 3.8 GHz Xeons, 2x as fast on SPECjbb business apps benchmarks than dual Xeons, etc
Your typical FPS game will vary, of course, until Carmack gets around to massively multithreading...
Re:too far? (Score:4, Interesting)
RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, etc all offer linux as OSS. This includes not just the compiler but a very wide array of tools. You can download these for free (mandrake only offers a short verion for free, but it is still including a large number of tools). ALL of the source code of anything marked OSS is available.
So, is Solaris now avilable with 100% of source code? Just a little while ago they were not (I no longer stay up with their development, I just talk to a few of their engineers).
Now, you mention DELL and IBM. Well they both sell hardware with services. Neither of them directly deal with Linux (except for IBM with Linux for the mainframe). You can buy just about any size machine from these 2 companies that is both smaller/cheaper to larger/more expensive than what Sun offers. In addition, when I look at the top 500 fastest computers, where is Solaris in there? Does it hold the majority of the top 10, let alone the top 500? Even in hardware, Sun is not there as much as IBM and others. In terms of Market share, Dell and IBM are individually beating Sun.
So, Linux is just about everywhere and has positive growth. Sun is strong on servers, but with flat growth. And you are claiming that Redhat, Novell, Dell, and IBM are spraying FUD? HummmmmmmShould I guess where you are from (as well as your modders)?
Re:too far? (Score:5, Informative)
OpenSolaris has an OSI license. It is called the CDDL. Welcome to open source.
Sun offers the Sun ONE Studio tools for free. Vastly superior to GCC in every measurable way. Of course that is my opinion based on years of code crunching. The fact is that these are available for free. Download and go.
I believe that the source is being made open also.
Absolutely. All of the components under the CDDL are open. Have fun.
More on the way.
Heck, Sun just spent FIVE years working on an entirely new filesystem called ZFS and they released it and open sourced it at the same time. How cool is that?
See : http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-11/sunf lash.20051130.1.html [sun.com]
I have heard that .. somewhere. I think Sun does that too. So does my corner store.
see : http://www.redhat.com/sundown/ [redhat.com] .. I bought one because it was five times cheaper than my daily coffee intake and I can't live with that either.
Why is there an IBM logo on that page? Why is there an edition RHEL for POWER but not for Sparc ? Why does it say in big BOLD graphics there "Migrate to Linux with IBM + Red Hat"?
Now go look at : http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/serve r/ [redhat.com]
The absolute cheapest edition is $349 and the top is $2499 !!
I can get Solaris for FREE.
For UltraSparc or for Intel or AMD Opteron.
The cost of an OPTIONAL software support contract is less than 34 cents a day.
I ought to know
See my blog : http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/pivot/entry. php?id=107 [blastwave.org]
While you're surfing, look at the three guys at :
http://www.novell.com/linux/unixtolinux/ [novell.com]
They are all parked on a bench outside the IT Directors office waiting to tell how reiserfs screwed up their data again and they lost the corporate database because of some messed up kernel patch.
But that is just me guessing.
Sure. I agree with "cheap".
Show me a 64-bit Opteron that is faster, cooler and less costly than a SunFire X2100.
Really. Anyone can make junk that is cheap and monsters that are massively expensive.
Show me a 64-bit machine that has more horsepower than an 8-core 1.2GHz SunFire T1000 or a 64-bit AMD Opteron machine with more horsepower than the SunFire X2100.
For less money.
Oh, and the Opteron gear has to be certified to run Windows as well as Linux as well as a real UNIX.
Good luck.
Take a long hard stare at my blog from a little while ago :
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/pivot/entry. php?id=113 [blastwave.org]
I count, what? 16 e
Re:too far? (Score:4, Insightful)
Solaris might be open source soon it already is, thank you very much. Check out OpenSolaris [opensolaris.org].
C'mon JonJ, the world has moved on, time to move along with them. Sun, Novell and RedHat are in the business of making money, they have to act on what is good for the company.
Put down the crackpipe (Score:2, Informative)
> undercuts their prices in every product line.
And how exactly are they doing this?
> I can get Solaris for free, Sun Cluster for free, the tools for free, Java for free, the
> source code to Solaris for free and a dual core Opteron or multi-core UltraSparc for dirt
> cheap.
So? RHEL is a support contract. I doubt Sun is handing out service contracts for free or even price matching RH. If you want the RH software
Re:Put down the crackpipe (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you should start comparing prices, then:
So, it would appear that Sun's support prices are actually lower rather than beating Red Hat's. In fact, for one of Sun's cheapest server systems, you can get Platinum support for $2304 for three years. Platinum support includes both 24/7 software support and 24/7 two-hour response time on-site hardware support. That's cheaper then one year of Red Hat's software-only 24/7 support.
Again, compare prices:
So, the Sun server may not be as cheap as building a system out of spare parts lying around in your basement, but it really is pretty cheap compared to the competition in that space.
Re:Put down the crackpipe (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, and that's indeed a nice price.
My "favorite" part is that the rails--the RAILS! mind you--are an additional $150!
Want cable management? Wave buh-bye to another 95 greenbacks.
Put another way: if you add both, you're paying a STAGGERING 25% of the cost just on racking the server!! You mean to tell me that of the HUGE costs Sun has in developing these m
Re:Put down the crackpipe (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Put down the crackpipe (Score:2)
Granted, you talk about GPL and hence "Free as in libre", but you're picking and choosing your choice of that word (free) as you go - plus, your choice of capitalizing "NOT" makes it look like a typo, where you forgot to release the shift button; you could have gone with "not" instead.
Pick one, and stay with it.
You start with "free as in no cost", so stick
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re:too far? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this means that you have more people trying out different things.
Sun then takes the most interesting stuff, and puts it in their next ge chips.
How is this (getting people to improve your product) a dumb idea?
Re:too far? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be interesting if there is enough of this technology running released for either the up and comers (China and India) or smaller firms here, to start making Sparcs, thereby encouraging it to spread as an alternate platform. Since Sun still sells support, consulting, etc, and the tools to drive it are f
Re:too far? (Score:2)
The sparc64 chips are faster than the ultrasparcs anyway, so someone just taking the now open sourced ultrasparc design and doing slight tweaks are not going to be able to compete with sun on performance, and they'd need huge volumes to compete on price/performance.
Re:too far? (Score:2)
Big Machines !! (Score:4, Funny)
Thats going to give us a nice biiig processor
Why bother? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
Re:Big Machines !! (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, the processor was never the problem. The SPARC architecture is well documented and easily obtainable. It was all the other fiddley bits of hardware that have made life difficult for OSS developers.
The roadmap is clear (Score:5, Insightful)
These new servers absolutely rock, and at superb prices.
I once had the pleasure of a 4-way Opteron v40z with a development version of 64-bit Solaris 10. It was a screamer, especially compared to our 4-way Dell P4 Xeon box, and 64-bit.
It was plenty fast enough to host 4 zones and several developers working on KDE, gcc and all manner of other stuff.
At last, Sun looks like it's turning the corner (despite the best efforts of some of its PHBs - no names mentioned).
Good luck Sun.
Re:The roadmap is clear (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The roadmap is clear (Score:2, Funny)
Stop bragging -- I'm getting jealous. :-)
Implementability (Score:5, Interesting)
Also speed of FPGAs is a huge let-down, unless a design takes advantage of their structure. There is no reason to believe that the processor will be designed for FPGAs... It is likely to be therefore very slow, even if you can implement it.
Re:Implementability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Implementability (Score:2)
Unlike open source software, with open source hardware you can not just take the source and re-create the product. What you can do, like open source software, is debug, simulate, test, t
Re:Implementability (Score:5, Interesting)
Contrary to TFA's claim, I suspect for a lot of people, Sun's previous attempt at open-sourcing a core (to the microSPARC) would be a lot more interesting if you wanted to put the design on an FPGA (unfortunately, I'm not at all sure this is still available). I'm not sure how well it would work on an FPGA either, but at least it stands a whole lot better chance, and it's probably still plenty of CPU for most typical FPGA-based designs.
Then again, www.opencores.org, www.fpga4fun.com, etc., already have quite a number of CPU cores available, many without the likelihood of patent problems, and such that are likely to accompany using a SPARC core. Better still, quite a few of these have already been tested in various FPGAs and a few have been put into ASICs as well.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Re:Implementability (Score:2)
OK, well -- you got me there -- four (4) is a number. Even "quite" a number, I guess. Of course, the available free verilog and/or VHDL CPU cores only adds up to four if you're very generous with your definition of CPU core, and if you specifically avoid requiring it to be in the same league as a sparc. But if you don't insist on that criteria, you could include all of them [opencores.org] and call it 20. But you
Re:Implementability (Score:2)
Well, I have to admit I've only used a couple of them, but I don't recall having had a lot more trouble using them than using commercial cores. As far as speed goes, I suppose it's largely a question of what you want. Most of what I've built was almost entirely custom hardware, with roughly the smallest CPU I could use to handle a few thing
Re:Implementability (Score:2)
I probably wouldn't have mentioned the FPGA except for the fact that Sun makes a really odd comment on the site about "not knowing an FPGA from an RTL". I'm not quite certain what they're getting at, but it's always possible they're going to have a single core, single thread, cut-down version that CAN fit on
ok, I'm convinced (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ok, I'm convinced (Score:2)
The product is already out..... http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bmseer#get_ready [sun.com]
Re:ok, I'm convinced (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure it may not be the best machine to use if you want to play Quake 4 or Half Life 2, but for scalable multithreaded apps, it really is quite impressive.
Sun finally "getting it?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Now all we need is the source code to the standard Java class libraries and we will be good to go
Re:Sun finally "getting it?" (Score:2)
Re:Sun finally "getting it?" (Score:2)
No. But there are several FOSS JVM's. What is missing to make a real FOSS JRE are the class libraries.
Re:Sun finally "getting it?" (Score:4, Informative)
check out src.zip in your favorite java dist.
Re:Sun finally "getting it?" (Score:2)
Re:Sun finally "getting it?" (Score:2)
provided under does not meet the Open Source definition, nor (I believe) is it even close to GPL compatible.
That said, and as others have already pointed out, there are efforts underway (most notably, GNU Classpath) to create Java classlibs that are purely Free / Open Source.
The only part that isn't open is the actual Java bytecode compiler and executor.
Compilers aren't a problem, there are s
But... eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
The best part in my mind? Think of all of the processor design classes in upper-level EE courses that are going to get a whole lot easier!
Useable Speed? (Score:2)
Personally a few hundred mhz effective speed is useable. Is it 'cutting edge'? No, but more then useable. ( i think they have LEON's up to 300mhz in high end FPGA's ).
Much as do you *need* a 3ghz intel machine? No, A 400mhz PII managed well will get the job done quite well.
Gate useage? Wont know the answer to that until we see the code.. But since you can get a SPARC compliant design into a reasonably sized FPGA, dont count it out, yet.
Re:Useable Speed? (Score:2)
Re:Useable Speed? (Score:2)
Re:Useable Speed? (Score:2)
Re:Useable Speed? (Score:2)
The Virtex 4 is really marvelous. You may be ab
Re:But... eh? (Score:2)
Jonathan Schwartz's Weblog (Score:5, Interesting)
And now you have a pretty good idea of what's in store for tomorrow. (Pay careful attention to the "open market for parts" comment - we're planning on delivering an extraordinary surprise to the industry. No sense in letting the software folks have all the fun...)
Re:Jonathan Schwartz's Weblog (Score:2)
Based on a 9.6 Ghz 8-core Niagara chip available in volume
9.6 GHz would rock, but the T2000 only comes in 1.2GHz varieties. Is Schwartz practicing new math or somthing?
Re:Jonathan Schwartz's Weblog (Score:2)
Re:Jonathan Schwartz's Weblog (Score:2)
I've seen worse marketese, but not much.
Re:Jonathan Schwartz's Weblog (Score:2)
PowerPC and Arm might get cheaper (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now Xilinx and Altera make user-configurable FPGA processors. Most of the processor is fixed, but you can encode what happens for special instructions. Here's one: http://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon_solutions/
Now if Sun is giving away the processor, there's no reason for you to pay more for a PowerPC-based design -- someone will make a "cheapo" FPGA-extendable UltraSPARC.
Sun's brain damage (Score:4, Interesting)
Even though Sun has a wonderful history of sharing their sources in many things, including many of the foundations on which Linux is built, it's really hard to give them full credit because their message is so... mixed.
Well, it may be the Sun is finally making a comeback. I came very, very close to buying a Sun last week. The deal-breaker was that I could not buy one with 2x 300 GB SCSI drives, in a 1U config, with 4 front-mount drive bays. These guys could [avadirect.com], and did so at a price that rocked, and the server itself is just quality hardware.
I wish Sun well - there's plenty about them we can use! (EG: OpenOffice)
brain damage? (Score:3, Funny)
Sun Microsystems - back from the Shark Jump? (Score:2)
Re:Sun's brain damage (Score:2)
All those parts from Avadirect look just like the barebones systems I bought from Tyan [tyan.com]. I presume they're using Tyan chassis/mobo systems and stuffing them with parts.
You can't compare a "white-box" server like that to something from Sun (or any of the other tier-1 server manufacturers). With tier-1 server boxes, you can get a 7x24 on-site service contract. This is really important when you're hosting machines off-site where you can't easily get to them, or don't want to spend money keeping a bunch of spa
Re:Sun's brain damage (Score:2)
Great, now I just need to build a fab... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I'm not sure how much of an impact this will have. There are other sparc manufacturers, but no one really seems to take notice.
I'm only half joking, so don't mod me funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm only half joking, so don't mod me funny (Score:2)
China doesn't have the technology, just yet, for chips as complex as high-speed CPUs, so I'd say probably another 5 years.
Re:I'm only half joking, so don't mod me funny (Score:2, Interesting)
China doesn't have the technology, just yet, for chips as complex as high-speed CPUs, so I'd say probably another 5 years.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Taiwanese companies may already have set up foundries in China to take advantage of the lower costs there. If that's the case, then they should have access to all of the necessary technologies to crank out cheap CPUs.Re:I'm only half joking, so don't mod me funny (Score:2)
2 cents,
Queen B
Re:I'm only half joking, so don't mod me funny (Score:3, Funny)
woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
And I hope this will "sparc" a revival of the sparc acrhictecture!
HP should've done the same with the Alpha architecture instead of letting it die a forgotten death. What a shame!
Re:woohoo! (Score:2)
Yea! How to combat cpu level DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that leon ( and other 'open' cpus ) was 'bad' but, this is from the people who brought SPARC to the world..
Re:Yea! How to combat cpu level DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, if they really want you to have DRM, they'll just put it in the motherboard instead, then. Or a special decoder card. Or a USB dongle.
who(m) does it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose that once we have open source versions of: schematic capture, synthesis, floorplanning, layout, timing, validation, and mask generation, then we can focus on an open source process and an open source fab. Not bloody likely!!!
I think the biggest benefit here is that now both hackers and Universities now have a REAL architecture to study in their classrooms. I'll definitely be on the prowl for resumes of students who studied real microprocessor Verilog in college, and not simple ISCAS circuits or architectures from the 1980's.
Only Parts of the Core are Opened (Score:3, Informative)
"Sun Microsystems Inc. is looking to ramp up interest in its new UltraSPARC T1 processor by open-sourcing parts of the multicore chip."
For those looking to actually burn an UltraSparc onto their favorite FPGA board are going to be out of luck. Sun couldn't release all the code because they probably have some patents or license agreements.
How is this something new? (Score:4, Informative)
Go to http://sparc.org [sparc.org] to see.
SPARC already has multiple manufacturers building independent but compatible chips. SPARC was designed to be an open, multi-sourced processor design. Scalable PRocessor ARChitecture.
Re:How is this something new? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How is this something new? (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting times, no? (Score:2)
So, the uber hackers get their hands/minds on a real processor.
One simple word springs to mind:
Refactoring
My experience has been that the cagey designer (I do hardware, friends do software) wants to find that mystic dotted line that says "cut here". The complexity just falls away after that careful choice.
I'll just watch from the sidelines, but I expect a lot of cross pollenation and hybridization to come from this intersection of hardware and software.
Crossing my fingers here, but if it works....
free money! (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, you'd have to be an idiot to not want to save millions! Nevermind that the technology (Cool Threads) sounds like the name of a Hot Topic spin off... Sign me up!
Listening to Open Graphics Project? (Score:5, Interesting)
Get your 0-day Microprocessor Ware3z HERE! (Score:4, Informative)
Parts are being released, not the entire design! (Score:3, Insightful)
The interface portions of the chip to be probably be opened up. Mainly to allow other companies to design chipsets for their new system.
I would like to see where they go with this. Software is a great thing to opensource because changes can be make with little effort and it is very cheap to verify your changes worked. Chip design on the other hand is extremely expensive, with slow turn around times and difficulting in debugging. Not only do you have to worry about the code, but how to design it properly for the process that is being used to fabricate it. Opensource is all about turnaround time, and chip design currently can not support that. Now if someone could create a extremely high density reprogrammable chip (500M gates) then all bets are off.
However, this will be a great learning experience to see any code they provide. It will give student and people in developing nations a chance to learn what goes into a 'high' performance chip design.
Now imagine... Apple switches processors *again* (Score:4, Funny)
We'd have computers with an open CPU but closed whatever-their-hand-is extension running an open OS with a closed GUI. Only thing left to deliver would be an open Distribution/Payment Channel with a closed DRM; I'm game for that if it's similar to the Mac-side small-apps economy. (A powerful freebie and a right-priced professional version. The freebie is so good you can easily justify the full-package price, especially knowing that it's going to a small team, so you're directly putting supper on their table.)
This could be a damn fine bit of social revolution.
Re:Now imagine... Apple switches processors *again (Score:2)
tack 128 Bit Vector execution unit on it ala AltiVec and I'd be onboard.
Cat among the pigeons (Score:2)
Re:FP! (Score:5, Funny)
Frame Pointer
Stack Pointer
ummmm...
What's TP??
Oh yeah
Toilet Paper - aka SCO Legal Documentation.