Sun Announces New x86 Servers 294
An anonymous reader writes "Sun announced the new V60x and V65x servers (1U and 2U respectively). The 1U has 2.8GHz Xeon CPUs and the 2U has 3.06GHz Xeon CPUs. They also announced a partnership with RedHat and Oracle running on these boxes. RedHat will also start shipping Sun's Java with their distribution."
This could make life easy for redhat users (Score:5, Insightful)
A brand new installation of redhat can then run things like servlets, jsps, etc., just like we can now run mod_perl and all that without end users having to build and install it.
S
Who'd have thought? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why sell this product? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if they'd taken the Pentium or Opteron CPUs and designed a new architecture around them, using something like the Sun Fire Fireplane backplane, that would have been more interesting. As it is, these are just a rackmount PC in a purple case.
Erik
Re:Sun is taking the same route as SGI (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, regarding competing with Dell in the x86 arena, the redhat/sun/oracle partnership has some chance of becoming stronger than redhat/dell partnership.
Well, we will have to wait and see. I think sun is a good company -- and teaming up with oracle and redhat can't be a bad move at this point.
S
Alright... (Score:5, Insightful)
And now they are providing generic Intel hardware with generic Linux software to create the same solutions everyone else has...
Does Sun really want to go up against Dell?
Re:Who'd have thought? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sun's new move... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Free your OS"
Re:SGI didn't see the signs (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally Belluzo left SGI after almost running it to the ground, and jooined Microsoft right away, some people think that he was on M$ payroll even while he was destroying, er I mean managing SGI. Coincidende?
Every major company that has got in bed with M$ and based their business on NT offerings is either dead or dying: Intergraph, DEC, etc. etc..
Re:Sun is taking the same route as SGI (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... show me one real application benchmark (like SAP or ORACLE apps., not TPC-C) where 10 one CPU machines has 9x times the performance of single of those same machines and I belive your speach. Currently, there's now paralell database that supports massive inserts using more than 2 nodes.
Clearly http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org/ looks promising, but there's still the problem of "order by" queries, since eahc node will answer its own order and the final appended result won't be valid.
Latency is the name of the game, with Ethernet in 10s of miliseconds and memory in the 10s of nanoseconds, there will always be a huge penalty for sincronization through network.
There's alway ways to add throughput (http://geocities.com/feromus/db-scalability.html
Re:Sun is taking the same route as SGI (Score:4, Insightful)
To me it looks like Sun x86 are competing with Sun SPARC with this move.
Who wants to buy a Sun Fire V240 [sun.com] at $6495 when they can this Sun Fire V65x [sun.com] at $4595?
Lets look at the specs:
V240 (SPARC),2U 2*1GHz UltraSPARC3, 1 MB Cache pr.CPU, 2 GB RAM max 8GB, 2 x 36 GB max 4, 4 x1Gb Ethernet, Solaris 8.
V65x (x86),2U 2*3GHz Xeon, 512 KB Cache pr.CPU, 1 GB RAM max 12GB, 1 x 36 GB, max 6, 2 x1Gb Ethernet, Solaris 9 or Linux.
Maybe the SPARC have better "troughput" for some applications, but it looks as if the V65x is better overall especially for CPU intensive tasks.
Since the volume of total SPARC CPU's will go further down as more Sun machines are sold with Intel CPU's they will become even more expensive.
Re:Why sell this product? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they do at the low end. They don't want any old Linux though : they want Red Hat because that's what all the major (non-free, enterprise class) applications are certified to run on. Big corporations don't want a PeeCee running Joe's Homebrew Linux to run Oracle. They want something that's certified and supported. That means Red Hat on big-name hardware with 24/7 support.
Re:Sun is taking the same route as SGI (Score:5, Insightful)
SGI also didn't have SGI proprietary software installed free on their x86 boxes. OTOH, Sun includes StarOffice, JDK, App Server etc.
SGI was more expensive than Dell, HP etc... I just compared Sun offering and found that they are cheaper than even Dell.
SGI x86 hardware (initial) was proprietary. I remember stock Linux would not install on them. Sun hardware is same as rest of X86.
Ahh, the final nail in the coffin called Sun. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey, not enough people are buying our most profitable hardware! Lets give them MORE reasons to think about buying something else!!!" - Scott McNeely.
Captain Ahab is not going to do down with the ship until he has managed to feed the White(Wintel) Whale his entire reason for being. Thank you, Scott. We hardly knew ya. I hope you Sun employees out there know how to tread water, and while you are at it, try to keep those resumes dry long enough to get them distributed.
The One Vendor Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, they will be trying to beat both Dell and IBM at their own game. SGI was at the last Linux Expo I went to (A few years back now) and during their presentation I was struck by the fact that they were trying to beat IBM at their own game, and I knew IBM was going to end up being the better player. Sun has more market share, extreme java expertise and a full range of machines to choose from, so I think they have a much better chance than SGI did.
Re:sun becomes a commodity vendor (Score:5, Insightful)
HP/Compaq? They're in the same league as Sun (HW quality-wise), but just spot-checking one of their ProLiant servers against the v65 configured similarly, the Sun machine is a little cheaper (no OS selected on the Compaq). Close enough to consider both. Again, after working for a company that has owned both, I still lean towards Sun as far as general hardware goodness. Hopefully this new kit lives up to that reputation.
That's what makes Sun able to compete in this market. Good hardware at a competitive price. Obviously the rest of the "commodity vendors" find it worthwhile to be in business.
Shift in philosophy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's a little different in that Sun acutally admitted that their "distro" was basically Red Hat with Sun logos thrown everywhere. They came out and basically said that this was in fact the biggest change they made. So customers, naturally, will say "why the hell am I paying for this?"
On the other hand, if they can give some real value-add to the x86 architecture, then that might mean something. Service will be a part of that, as will hideously stable components, many of which I'm sure they'll design. So it could end up being a bit more than a rackmount PC. Although if it's being sold at a PC price-point, don't expect the world.
Though you do seem surprised that Sun is trying to pull and IBM and switch from the hardware market to more software and services. Advances in low-end processing power have made high-end server margins go 'poof.'
Wow.... Java (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sun is taking the same route as SGI (Score:2, Insightful)
Well x86 are CISC processors while Sparcs are RISC processors so you cant just judge by the clock speed alone, they are fundmentally different, another thing
Re:Ahh, the final nail in the coffin called Sun. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun selling x86 has nothing to do with competing with Dell and everything to do with selling big kit. It's about competing with HP and IBM who can offer more flexible solutions, i.e. small web/app servers talking to huge database servers. Big kit is Sun's core business now. This is what it has to protect.
Likewise, as another writer writes, it's a way to keep Sun only shops from straying away. More and more companies are installing Linux in the low end - fact. Sun doesn't want another vendor in there selling Linux boxes, which might mean losing other sales later in the mid/high end.
Two Words (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
As an IT manager, this is great, because I can buy Sun everything if I want to, which makes purchasing and maintenance easier. I can also push for a better volume discount if I want. Better still, at the low end, there's no vendor lock in, as I can run Open Source software under Linux. I also get the choice of Solaris x86 or Redhat. My experiences with the build quality of Sun equipment would give me some confidence too.
I think this is good for the customer and Sun. About time, I say...
Re:Sun is taking the same route as SGI (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SGI didn't see the signs (Score:2, Insightful)
These companies were completely proprietary -- everything from the CPU to the Window Manager on their OS. Being proprietary is very, very, very expensive -- and the companies realized this. In the long term there was simply no way they would be competitive with Wintel/Lintel. So they did the only thing they could -- tried to leverage "commodity" technology onto their propreitary platforms and see if they could ride it out for a few years.
SGI also got royally screwed when Itanium was delayed for 4 years. They were left with shitty hardware while the highend got it's last hurrah boost during the dotcom years.
It's funny that IBM's and HP's "successful" Linux/Windows on Intel strategy is really no different than the failed strategies of SGI and DEC. The only reason is that IBM and HP had more money to play with until the market shifted.
Re:Price Comparasion (Score:3, Insightful)
Dell also discounts off list prices.
Anthony
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about the low end. (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted an x86 box will blow a 480/3800/280/240 into the weeds (probably) - but an x86 does not deliver the power of 72 CPUs on a 15K - or even 24 on a 6800. This is not about the back end - deploying a stateless web farm on x86 is cheap and good - but the back end DB/App server needs power (>24 CPU) and resilience (zero transaction loss fail over), and x86 does not offer the power at this stage.
My bad... PC2100 it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
The 440 and 880s use quad-interleaved SDRAM at (!) 75 MHz. I think they could ramp up that a wee bit... considering the RAM itself costs an arm and a leg.