Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Sun Microsystems Hardware

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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Announces New x86 Servers

Comments Filter:
  • by sisukapalli1 ( 471175 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:07PM (#5999502)
    Having the latest versions JDK and also J2EE SDK built in with the system may mean that the Apache Tomcat/ant and other things will also come bundled with redhat (and most likely pre-configured just like mod_perl and mod_php).

    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
  • by prgrmr ( 568806 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:08PM (#5999509) Journal
    that is would be Sun in need of RedHat and not the reverse? This could be the combination that breaks the Microsoft desktop hegemony, if Sun and Redhat market it correctly toward that end.
  • by EriktheGreen ( 660160 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:08PM (#5999511) Journal
    You'd think Sun would have learned their lesson from Sun Linux... people don't want a PC in Sun clothing any more than they want Linux with Sun logos all over it.

    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

  • by sisukapalli1 ( 471175 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:11PM (#5999528)
    SGI ditched their core IRIX. They started moving towards NT on their machines. So, the analogy does not apply directly here.

    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)

    by coene ( 554338 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:12PM (#5999531)
    Sun's value has always been that they provide the hardware (Sparc Stuff) and the software (Solaris Stuff) to make one, metal-bending, kickass high-powered, proprietary solution...

    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?
  • by saintjab ( 668572 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:18PM (#5999573) Homepage Journal
    How is this going to hurt the MS strangle-hold over the desktop environment? Neither SUN or RH could compete with MS for the desktop; why would the two together be any different? If the two were to partner up and dump huge amounts of capital into developing a more robust and usable desktop there may be a chance.. But I doubt seriously that this is their intention. This may put a ding in MSs armor, but it won't affect their overall control of the desktop arena. But that's just my worthless $0.02.
  • Sun's new move... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bsdparasite ( 569618 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:21PM (#5999595)
    Sun's new move is good enough for them to get into the x86 server space. I don't think anyone at the enterprise level is replacing all their SPARCs quite yet, even though the average x86 user thinks that's the way to go for servers. And when enterprise users think of a good vendor to do hardware business with, they might as well go with Sun. I also don't believe all the hype that predicts the death of every other form of Unix other than Linux. Solaris is a solid platform, and will continue to be until Linux can perform SMP like Solaris, handle I/O banks like Solaris.

    "Free your OS"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:23PM (#5999601)
    Actually it was the incompetent management of Mr. Beluzzo who wanted to force feed NT down SGI's throats. SGI had long moved from the "graphics gravy train" and were making inroads in the Super and server markets. Mr. Belluzzo or whatever the spelling of his name is tried to move towards NT when SGI still had a technological lead, plust it made disasterours alliances with Microsoft (they gave tons of IP to Redmond for mere peanuts).

    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..
  • by maitas ( 98290 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:26PM (#5999619) Homepage
    > In a clustered enterprise situation 20 3GHz Xeon will perform better than 2 900MHz UltraSPARC. Especially if we are talking Java.

    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) but latency will always have to increase...

  • by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:26PM (#5999620) Journal
    Mod parent up, nail on head.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:30PM (#5999649)
    people don't want a PC in Sun clothing

    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.

  • by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:37PM (#5999696)
    Not true. The SGI didn't have and still doesn't have IRIX on X86, so they couldn't migrate their customers successfully. If I am installing Linux or Windows on X86, why should SGI matter? On the other hand, if you need Solaris X86, it does matter. Thanks to SCO, Sun's importance is even higher. This is number one difference between DEC, SGI, HP migration to PC and Sun's.

    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.

  • by LibertineR ( 591918 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:37PM (#5999699)
    I hope Sun notices the smoldering carcass of Silicon Graphics on the side of the road they are now traveling down. Happy to see that the death of this horribly managed beast is not too far off.

    "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.

  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:41PM (#5999718) Homepage Journal
    Folks like to stay on one vendor whenever possible, since it simplifies accountability issues. If you're buying big iron from Sun anyway, it may be worth picking up the mid-range and desktop from them as well. Chances are, that'd lower support costs, make it easy to find the phone number to call when something breaks and normalize quality of support. If Sun's support desk is better than Brand X (And I can tell you first hand that Brand X support sucks,) that alone might make it worth dropping a couple extra grand per machine for the brand name.

    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.

  • by teeker ( 623861 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:42PM (#5999726)
    Because not only is Sun competing with similar hardware, they are selling it for a good price. After owning examples from both manufacturers, I would bet on Sun's hardware quality (x86 or otherwise) over Dell's any day of the week. For the same price, I'll pick Sun every time.

    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.
  • by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:44PM (#5999740) Homepage
    You'd think Sun would have learned their lesson from Sun Linux... people don't want a PC in Sun clothing any more than they want Linux with Sun logos all over it.

    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)

    by Kurtv ( 558710 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @01:49PM (#5999779)
    Like it isnt easy enough to download it and unpack it on your own.....
  • by KingRamsis ( 595828 ) <`kingramsis' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @02:18PM (#5999972)
    but it looks as if the V65x is better overall especially for CPU intensive tasks.

    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 ...the architecture itself is different. the x86 architecture has indeed evolved a long way from the single user machine to the server land BUT a SUN is a SUN, did you ever wonder why is there a 2K$ gap between the lowest end Sparc and the highest end x86 machine of the same class ?.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @02:23PM (#6000023)
    I'm so bored with this same theme over and over again. Why don't you all stay in your own thread and keep your comments to yourselves.

    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)

    by jtharpla ( 531787 ) <jtharp.smalldark@net> on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @02:50PM (#6000263) Homepage
    Hardware RAID. Dell sells Intel boxes with it, HP sells Intel boxes with it. Why should I consider Sun without this? I know Dell's Hardware RAID isn't the best performance, but it's great for availability--actually I prefer's HP's (er, Compaq's) RAID controllers the best. What does Sun bring to the table to compete?
  • Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adam872 ( 652411 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @02:53PM (#6000288)
    I think this is actually a smart move on Sun's part. For several years, Dell, IBM, Compaq have been taking away market share at the low end from Sun. Now they at least have a product that can compete in the commodity space, where price is the overriding factor. It also means they have products all the way from the low end to the mainframe class like the E15k. Even if they only sell a small number of boxes, it will be better than they have been getting before.

    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...
  • by sean23007 ( 143364 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @03:29PM (#6000632) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately, that is exactly Apple's biggest problem: they're always about to release something newer and better, to the point where one would hesitate to purchase their current product. Although a company is in good shape if repeated excellent releases can be considered a problem...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @03:45PM (#6000841)
    SGI and DEC were going into the ground long before getting in bed with MS.

    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.
  • by t482 ( 193197 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @04:01PM (#6001041) Homepage
    No big companies pay list price for IBM stuff. Larger customers get a 20-40% discount.

    Dell also discounts off list prices.

    Anthony
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @05:06PM (#6001700)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by fleabag ( 445654 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @06:26PM (#6002347)
    Sun does not really compete at the low end. A 280R at 17,000 GBP (discount yadda yadda) is not really competitive with a Xeon whatever, but that's not the point. It is binary/OS/Firmware compatible with the F15K/6.8K that I will deploy on, and that's why I will specifiy if for a dev box every time.

    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.
  • by moogla ( 118134 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @11:47PM (#6004464) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately, the Sun Fire 2x0 are the only SPARCs with DDR.

    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.

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...