This link : https://vetusware.com/download/SunOS%20Source%20Code%204.1.3/?id=13475 seems to have the right file (registration required, but it's free, use a disposable email). Beats my having to find a SCSI adaptor, a QIC-150 drive, and trying to read my old QIC-150 tape with the source code on it... Gilles Le mar. 4 sept. 2018 à 13:48, Kevin Bowling a écrit : > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 10:05:06PM -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote: > >> > >> Sorry this is just bogus about being weak compared to Solaris. Are > >> you looking back with rosy glasses or have you scanned the code in the > >> past couple years? I have and there is nothing particularly special > >> about Solaris internals here or elsewhere. > > > > I haven't looked at Solaris code; I had just *assumed* that if they > > were selling million dollar E10k's, they would have had NUMA support > > at *least* as good as SGI's Irix. And it would have been an excuse > > for their pathetic performance on UP and 2-4 SMP systems. > > One would hope so, but that was the strategy that got them eaten by a > grue. Another funny anecdote about this aloofness.. Linux on sparc64 > uses the Relaxed Memory Order mode that the hardware offers . > Solaris.. Total Store Order. There are tons of things like this in > the code that blow my mind. I would have been pissed if I were on the > hardware side of SPARC. > > > > >> Keep in mind IBM wants to sell RockHoppers and E980s (4 drawers, 16 > >> sockets, 768 threads) for dedicated Linux use which have similar > >> north/south and east/west off chip networks. They have a lot of very > >> talented people on the firmware, kernel, compilers to make these > >> things work fast, including Paul. > >> ... > >> Where you start going beyond Linux-like NUMA IMO is when you get > >> Irix-like features of page copying, migration, and multiple advanced > >> placement policies. > > > > One thing to consider is that IBM really only cared about optimizing > > hardware for DB2, Oracle, and Webshpere. That's one of the reason why > > you didn't see much in the way of innovative file system work, ala > > ZFS. There was no business justification for pouring 100+ engineer > > years to develop a next-generation file systesm --- and they had > > already done that once already for GPFS, a cluster file system. As > > far as local disk file system was concerned, the only real business > > value it had was to serve as a program loader for DB2 and Websphere. :-) > > > > (I'm exagerating a little for effect, but *only* a little.) > > Hmm, I think they've been pretty earnest at wanting to be 2+ years > ahead of the general market with POWER for as long as I can see, lots > of HPC money has been subsidizing that. Depends on the workload but > bus and memory bandwidth right now with PCIe Gen4 and NvLink can > really cut down on server sprawl. I've met with the GM/chief > architect and they see OpenPOWER positioned as a full frontal > competitor to Intel Xeon. I'm fairly disappointed in my > contemporaries for not recognizing the value of a completely open > source firmware and on chip controller stack; especially after the > recent snafu where Intel changed the microcode license to disallow > benchmarks and claimed it was an accident. > > Your statements make sense to me with respect to AIX, as Linux has > been the main effort since the 2000s. GPFS looks neat, I wish it were > open or at least internals documented well enough to study the > implementation academically. > > > > > So as far as NUMA was concerned, there was almost certainly not have > > been much perceived business value in having sophisticated > > auto-migration for arbitrary workloads in the kernel. Something basic > > which was good enough for Oracle, DB2, etc., was all that would be > > needed. (And if you needed to hire consultants from IBM Global > > Services to mind-meld with the configuration documentation in order to > > get the best out of your Rockhopper.... well, shucks, darn. :-) > > That's probably the dirty little secret. It's long been profitable to > carefully plan software interrupt handlers, user threads, and memory > allocation even on pedestrian servers if they are running a fixed > function. I guess Google's Borg and the new workalikes could do > semi-automagic things with cgroups these days. There is evidence of > people getting pretty crazy with it when we see things like Intel > cache allocation features. > > > At IBM the business people really did make the funding decisions of > > what to work on. ZFS could have never happened at IBM because no one > > would have thought that a even a tiny number of IBM's current or > > potential customer base would abandon AIX or Linux and switch to > > Solaris, or buy Sun hardware instead of IBM hardware --- just for the > > sake of ZFS. And that's how decision-makers at IBM really thought. > > (And to be fair to those decision-makers, IBM is still in business as > > a free-standing business --- and Sun is not.) > > Agreed, one of these companies is doing pretty well with a fat > dividend yield, that other has basically been dismantled for all but a > couple remaining desirable platform control points like Java and > MySQL. > > Many things in tech are happy accidents and a small number of > motivated people at the right place and time. A Sun engineer admitted > on some video I've seen that the green light was really given for ZFS > because they got stumped by some UFS bugs.. once enough of ZFS was > written to test the end to end checksumming features they found out > some of these heisenbugs were LSI HBA and disk firmware issues :o) > > Surveying some of these filesystems.. JFS2 is a decent, nowhere near > the capabilities of ZFS but even today it's not in dire need of > replacement.. I suspect another issue complementary to your point is > the standalone storage business is many $B of revenue. ESS/DS8000 and > the like are preferred revenue. IBM and HP were more in the SAN game > than Sun and SGI who let the customers configure systems themselves be > used as storage (Sun was using VxFS for a long time, SGI had some CXFS > things IIRC). Tru64 had a pretty interesting filesystem on paper, > curious if you ever looked at its design since they open sourced it. > > Regards, > Kevin > -- *Gilles Gravier* - Gilles@Gravier.org GSM : +33618347147 and +41794728437 Skype : ggravier | PGP Key : 0x8DE6D026