4-Way Sun Fire V40z Reviewed

Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech has a pretty thorough analysis of Sun's V40z 4-way Opteron server that fits in a 3U. Among some of the more noteable benchmarks include a 2 minute, 30 second Linux 2.6.4 kernel compile! Who would have thought only a few years ago that Sun would be the new champion of Linux and AMD?"

Rebadged Newisys 4300?

[Master Bait]

Not that that is a bad thing, but I cannot see any difference between the V40z and this [newisys.com].

Fast Kernel Compile

[AFCArchvile]

2 minute, 30 second Linux 2.6.4 kernel compile!

That's pretty fast compared to what I've done: compiling 2.4.27 in Gentoo on a Sun Ultra 2 (2 x 300 MHz UltraSPARC). It took over 90 minutes, and that was without the USB and Bluetooth sections of the kernel, since there's no way the Ultra 2 can make any use of either.

Champion of Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if Sun hadn't given a ton of money to SCO, but they did so no, Sun is not a champion of Linux.

Re:I love the combination...

[tealtalon]

I wonder how long to kompile KDE. That's the worst part of a Gentoo install for me.

Re:Rebadged Newisys 4300?

[ArkiMage]

Yeah.. We have multiple Newisys 2100's and recently bought Sun 20z's which are the same thing. Cheaper as Sun than Newisys as well. The 4300 and 40z are identical as well. Oh, and Newisys will NOT offer firmware on their website. Sun does...

Sybase ASE 64-bit Opteron?

[rngadam]

Grrr, any Sybase engineer could tell when the HELL they are going to deliver Sybase ASE on Linux 64-bit for Opteron???

We're just waiting for this at work to move to all this cool hardware! Geez... chalk one more for moving to Oracle!

Re:Since when...

[Lehk228]

Since when... (Score:1)
the kernel compilarion speed is a benchmark factor for a server hardware.

because it is something that many home users as well as server admins have actually performed on various machines and gives a better measure of performance to people than some arbitrary benchmark score.

4-year-old dupe :)

[moosesocks]

4 years ago slashdot posted a story [slashdot.org] introducing the first Dual-processor athlon system and used the linux kernel compilation time as a benchmark.

A little over 4 years ago, a Dual Processor Athlon System compiled the kernel in 2 minutes flat. The kernel was version 2.4.0ac12.

I'm no software/hardware developer, so I'm not going to comment on the significance of this result, but nonetheless I find it interesting that the kernel took less time to compile on a much more modest system 4 years ago. Has the kernel really grown THAT much?

Think about it --- they were using two 1.2ghz 32-bit processors with 256mb of ram opposed to the four 64-bit processors with 8gb of ram in this test, and it still took 20% longer to compile!!!

Re:Is 150 second Kernel Compile really that fast?

[Monkelectric]

I really dont think it is. My Athlon 1700 compiles a kernel in under 5 mins. I think my P4 is 3 - 4 minutes.

I suspect that kernel building does not run in parallel very easy.

2.4/2.6 compile times compared -- v/s whitebox

[unixwin]

Before the Sun lovers go chanting ga-ga-ga about how this will save Sun's sorry ass or how it outperforms their "other" systems , I'd like to put forward some numbers running similar tests against whitebox systems.

Config: On my 8GB 246 (single processor, whitebox) opteron I get (make distclean etc between steps)
Time / Kernel / Make option
2"12s / 2.4.21 (time make -j5)
3m33.081s / 2.6.4 (time make -j5)
3m31s / 2.6.4 (time make -3)

From anandtech for the 2.6.4 kernel.
2"43 sec V40Z -j5
3"30 sec V40z -j3
4" 34 sec W2100Z -j3

Hmm.. for the 5K I paid for it. I'm happy waiting 50 seconds more.. ( 5K v/s 17K and 3"30' v/s 2"43')

Misc info:..
gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/x86_64-redhat-linux/3.2.3/specs
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --disable-checking --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --host=x86_64-redhat-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-42)

make --version
GNU Make version 3.79.1, by Richard Stallman and Roland McGrath.
Built for x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu

Just been wondering about this

[ShatteredDream]

If Apple continues to make MacOS X Server more and more robust, and if they could reduce the price on the XServes, then for many environments why not run MacOS X? From looking through guides to OSX Server, it seems really straight forward to setup and maintain compared to even most Linux distributions and looks like it just might be something that if marketed correctly could at least clobber Windows Server for many small business server needs.

I remember taking a networking class a year and a half ago where we did Red Hat 9 and Windows 2000. Even though I already was comfortable with Linux, it just seemed to be a lot easier to configure than Windows. In fact, I was actually quite amazed at how much harder it was to get Windows to do something server-related through all of the GUIs than it was to do it on Linux. Combine the fact that OSX is a UNIX clone at its core and that it's GUI is well-designed and terribly slick, I just can't imagine why most companies don't even look at it. If kept safely behind a good firewall it should be easy as hell for non-geeks to keep running for basic things like file/printer sharing.

Re:I love the combination...

[agraupe]

No... gentoo != good server distro. I am a satisfied gentoo user on the desktop, and I run a very small server (alongside my desktop, just for light personal use). I don't use gentoo for the speed, I use it for the customizability. Portage is a great tool. Ideally, the Gentoo project would make portage a tool which can be put on top of other distros, as they do have advantages. Portage, at the moment, is more or less tied to gentoo, so gentoo is what I use. There are binaries for things like KDE, and besides, it's not like I need everything now. I can be patient unlike some people. That being said, these qualities do not make a good server. You might want something like Debian or slackware for that.

How does this compare with HP?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about this ProLiant DL585 [hp.com] server from HP. It seems very comprable (4 Opterons, 8 or so PCI-X slots, configurable with lots of memory and storage, not to mention a similar price point). There are links to a few benchmarks on that page. Anyone have any experience with the DL585 or similar HP servers or know how they compare to these servers from Sun?

Re:Is 150 second Kernel Compile really that fast?

[timeOday]

I suspect that kernel building does not run in parallel very easy.

The kneejerk response here is, "just use make -j 10" But in practice, I don't think make will parallel compile files in different directories, and linking is a serial bottleneck. In a kernel tree I expect linking is performed in many different directories to produce modules.

Re:Specs

[BCW2]

That price is lowball, not fully equiped. In serious drool mode I priced out a Tyan K8Q type mobo (quad Opteron), 4 Opteron 850's, and 32 gigs of memory. On pricewatch thats over $12,000. You still need a case, PS, drives,... and thats not from vendors I would buy from based on their ratings either. Reputable vendors have higher prices. Sun of course gets the volume discount if this takes off for them.

Re:What was so good about these dead systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

except risc systems using 'real' unix have always been hardcore and reliable, no crap that evolved from the dos days, and yes i own 4 pc's most running linux, but I still see the attraction of workstation machines

Re:Champion of Linux?

[nonmaskable]

In the "driver deal", SCO gave Sun options to buy a bunch of SCO stock at $1.83 per share. This was shortly before SCO's big linux license FUD PR campaign started, and the stock went over $20/share shortly thereafter. Combine that with McNealy gloating about having the only legal version of linux right after the "driver deal" and there's a lot more here than a conspiracy theory.

What's so special?

[Guspaz]

It's a quad-opteron in a 4U chassis. I don't get it, what's so special about that?

I'd be much more impressed with a 1U quad opteron with 32GB of RAM via 16x2GB DDR400 and 1.5TB of storage via 3x500GB drives.

Oh wait. It's already been done. It's called Appro's 1142H, a 1U quad opteron server. [appro.com]