X

Solaris vs Red Hat

Guest Author
Sorry guys, the heading is not mine. Its coming from the discussion at href="http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8571">www.osnews.com
where the Solaris 10 networking is being discussed. It is pretty
interesting discussion if you filter out few of the usual posting where
people don't really know the facts.

I was surprised to see a large number of people who know Solaris voicing
their positive opinions. Normally, people from Solaris world are not very
vocal on discussion groups and public forums. So that is a surprising
(and good) change. Guys keep it up!

Someone mentioned that why are we not targetting Windows. Come on guys,
you got to be serious. I am an engineer and do you think I design
networking architecture targeted to beat windows :) As pointed out in
the comments, they are not even on my radar. Maybe in next twenty years,
their technology will match our current stuff but then we would have
hopefully moved on :\^) And yes, as I am told, we do beat Windows 2003 by
20-30% on a 2 CPU x86 box (Opteron 2x2.2GHz with 2 Gb RAM) on webbench
(static, dynamic and ecommerce)
. There are probably more benchmarks but
frankly we hadn't had time to compare or publish. Our sole aim right now
is to improve the real customer workloads and we are depending on
customers to tell us these numbers.

As for AIX and HP-UX (and I am going to get in trouble now with my bosses
for saying this), they just don't exist in any significant manner. I have
talked to a large numbers of customers in past two years since part of
our approach is to understand what the customer is having trouble with
and what he will need going forward, and let me be really honest, I don't
see HP-UX at all and very little AIX. Yes I do see IBM and HP machines,
but they are all running Linux (please no flames, this is just my
experience).

Again, when we are designing/writing new code, we do like to set some
targets. When it comes to scaling across large number of CPUs, we have
always done very well because thats where we focused. We never really
looked at 1-2 CPU performance before since it was always easy to add more
processors on SPARC platforms. Linux on the other hand has really simple
code that allowed it to perform very well on 1 CPU. So our challenge
was to come up with an architecture that could beat Linux on low end and
still allowed us to scale linearly on high end and sure enough, we
created FireEngine
. Its the same code that runs on SPARC platforms
scaling linearly and runs pretty fast on 2 CPU x86 platforms. And as you
add more CPUs on x86 (going to 4 and 8 and then dual core), we just start
becoming very compelling architecture.

As for some people commenting about the validity on the numbers comparing
Solaris 10 and Apache with RHEL AS3 and Apache on href="http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature">www.sun.com, they are on
the same H/W. Its a 2x2.2 Ghz Opteron box (V20z) with 6Gb RAM and 2
Broadcom Gig NICs. The numbers were done on webbench and the other major
web performance benchmark that we can't talk about since the numbers are
not published yet. These numbers are for out of box Solaris 10 32bits with no
tuning at all (entire FireEngine focus was on out of box performance for
real customer workloads)
. And frankly, we are not really interested
in benchmarks because all the Linux web performance numbers (for instance
SPECweb99) are published using TUX or Red Hat content accelarator. I
haven't come across a single customer who is running TUX so far. So why
doesn't someone publish a Linux Apache number without any benchmark
special and we will be sure to put resources to meet/beat those
numbers. That I think would be a more fair comparison. And thats why I am
far more impressed by customer quotes like the one from href="http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,96191p2,00.html">"Bill
Morgan, CIO at Philadelphia Stock Exchange Inc.", where he said that
Solaris 10 improved his trading capacity by 36%. Now we are not
talking about a micro benchmark here but a system level capacity. This
was on a 12 way E4800 (SPARC platform). Basically, they loaded Solaris 10
on the same H/W and were able to do 36% more stock transactions per
second
.

And once again, I am not really anti Linux or anything. I just need
something to compete against in a good natured way (HP-UX, AIX, IRIX are
not around anymore, and I still can't bring myself down to compete with
Windows). Before FireEngine, it was Linux guys who used to pull my leg
saying when will I make Solaris perform as well as Linux on 1 CPU. Well,
Solaris does perform now and some of the guys who used ot pull my leg
took me out for beer when they loaded Solaris express on their
system. And knowing them, I might be buying the next round somewhere down
the line.

Oh, before I end, I wanted to just touch on why we are not comparing
against RHEL AS4beta. Well, its not us who is doing the comparing but our
customers. And that is because although Solaris 10 is due to ship now,
things like FireEngine have been available and stable for almost a
year. If I am to do the comparison, I will pick the latest in Red hat but
I will compare it against Solaris 10 Update (due out 3-6 months after
Solaris 10). And you know what, we haven't exactly been sitting around
for the past year. Solaris 10 update will improve performance over S10
FCS by another 20-25% on networking workloads.

Join the discussion

Comments ( 6 )
  • Iouri Goussev Sunday, October 17, 2004
    "I/O-intensive operations": On the Sun Java System Directory Server 5.2. The Solaris OS tests were conducted on a Sun Fire V20z server with two 2-GHz AMD Opteron processors, 8 GB of RAM, two internal Seagate Cheetah Ultra320 SCSI disks, and two Gigabit Ethernet ports. Linux tests were conducted on a Sun Fire V20z server with 4 GB of RAM.




    8Gb vs 4Gb???? Now is it fair?


    http://www.sun.com/2004-1012/feature/bench.html#foot6
  • PatrickG Sunday, October 17, 2004
    Could it be that RH Linux kernel performance degrades after 4GB RAM? Or else RH Linux out of the box does not support over 4GB RAM; I am not 100% sure.
  • Dave Warnock Sunday, October 17, 2004
    Hi,
    I am looking at a server platform for Solaris 10. You can see my thoughts at
    http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2004/10/buying_sun_is_t.html
    and
    http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2004/10/solaris_hardwar.html
    I am trying to get a comparison between x86, AMD Opteron and Sparc entry level servers, all from Sun. To be used for Samba, java web applications and SunRay server.
    Thanks
    Dave
  • Ivan A Tuesday, October 19, 2004
    checking http://www.specbench.org/web99/results/ thereare no results for solaris10. MOST OF the other vendors have posted resulst. WHEN will sun follow suit and post them for independent confirmation&comparison?
  • Bryan Althaus Friday, October 22, 2004
    Sunay,
    I can't wait for Solaris 10 to come out and show Linux for the complete hack it is. It's refreshing to see how professional the Sun kernel developers are in a time when most developers just complain "About everything."
    Note, I've used Linux since 0.99PL12 so it's not that I don't like Linux, just I realize unlike the /. crowd that it's far from perfect. I had a hot rod ('70 Mustang fastback 4 spd 351C) in High School but I never thought it was a Ferrari.
    Solaris is clearly the Ferrari of OS's and Linux is clearly the hot rod. I just wish the /. Linux people could graduate from High School
  • - Tuesday, October 26, 2004
    It's a shame they benchmarked redhat 3.0, which uses a 2.4 kernel. It'd be nice if you used linux 2.6 for your benchmarks - that's what Solaris 10 is going to fight against, not 2.4. And Linux 2.6 its so much better than linux 2.4...(it's not a surprise if linux 2.4 sucks with lots of cpus)
    By the way, NASA just presented the fatest supercomputer on the world - which seems to run Linux -> http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2004/october/columbia.html
    I don't know what's the highest CPU number for Solaris, but the beasts behind are 20 Altix boxes - only 16 were used for the benchmark.
    Each Altix box has 512 CPUs - yes, 512 cpus, and it's a single image running linux. The times when Solaris people had to tell linux people how to scale linearly on high CPU counts have gone a long time ago.
Please enter your name.Please provide a valid email address.Please enter a comment.CAPTCHA challenge response provided was incorrect. Please try again.Captcha