Tuesday, June 16, 2009
x86 Rises, Part 2: Decreasing Value of Big UNIX
Several years ago I drafted a white paper I called "x86 Everywhere". I started it in the fall of 2004, let it sit, and updated it in April 2005. It remains unfinished, but with the release today of Intel's Nehalem processor, I took a look at it again. Here is Part 2:
Three trends could allow what I call "x86 Everywhere" to happen.
The first trend is the decrease in value of large, partitionable, RISC/UNIX systems.
All major commercial RISC/UNIX systems vendors offer large systems that can support large workloads, or can be partitioned to support many medium-sized workloads. The primary reasons for deploying a medium-sized workload in a partition on a large server are expected growth beyond the capacity of typical midrange servers, higher system resource utilization, system management efficiencies of server consolidation, and customer politics and preferences. Each of these reasons is coming under assault by the advancement of Moore's law, and as a result, the value proposition of large, partitionable datacenter servers is declining.
The performance improvements brought about by Moore's law over the last several years have outpaced customer workload growth, allowing midrange systems to handle the expected growth of most customer workloads. In addition, the price of midrange RISC/UNIX system has declined significantly over the last several years, starting with Sun's UltraSPARC III based V880, whose price point was then met by IBM with the POWER4-based p650, and HP's strategy of offering standard configurations of PA-RISC and Itanium midrange systems at very aggressive prices. Moore's law has caused system utilization to drop, as processors are now very powerful.
Traditional physical based partitioning, such as Sun's Dynamic System Domains and HP's Node Partitions (nPars) do not provide adequate granularity given the performance of today's processors. The result is the rise of software-based partitioning, logical partitioning, and virtual machine technology, which are portable to smaller, less expensive RISC/UNIX systems. In the case of purely software based partitioning technology, it is portable to other ISAs such as x86 platforms. For example, virtual machine technology is primarily being used on x86 systems via VMware's products. These shift in server partitioning technology are also decreasing the value proposition of large and midrange RISC/UNIX servers.
The recent emphasis in the industry for provisioning and system management solutions, along with policy-based computing solutions to manage large numbers of discreet servers has yet to significantly change the industry, however improvements in this area have improved the system management efficiencies of distributed servers. This, along with some of the inherent provisioning and management efficiencies of software-based partitioning technologies (shared network and disk resources) have resulted in a decrease in the relative value of large partitionable systems.
One should note, this decrease in value is real. It is not simply a customer perception. First, physical partitioning is simply too expensive a method to achieve partitioning in a server. Markets define prices, not vendors. Costs define margins, not prices. In a scenario with two otherwise equivalent servers, one using physical partitioning, the other using logical partitioning, the logical partitionable server will offer the vendor greater margins. Similarly, designing a server with physical partitioning which offers the same granularity as logical partitioning would likely be abandoned for having too high a cost. Second, customers really are moving workloads from previous generation large servers to smaller servers of the current generation, rather than partitions on larger current generation servers. In 1998 a Sun customer might consider paying the 50% price premium of an E10K over multiple E4500s. The value the 50% premium represented, primarily in growth capacity, justified the premium. Today the premium an E20K has over multiple V890s or V490s is so much higher (around 150% more), few customers can justify the value the E20K price premium provides.
The effect of this is a leveling of playing field between RISC/UNIX servers and x86 servers. Midrange RISC/UNIX servers are becoming simpler and cheaper. Midrange x86 servers have become more robust. RISC ISAs versus the x86 ISA is become a "Coke versus Pepsi" decision: a flavor choice.
Related Post:
x86 Rises, Part 1: The Background
Three trends could allow what I call "x86 Everywhere" to happen.
The first trend is the decrease in value of large, partitionable, RISC/UNIX systems.
All major commercial RISC/UNIX systems vendors offer large systems that can support large workloads, or can be partitioned to support many medium-sized workloads. The primary reasons for deploying a medium-sized workload in a partition on a large server are expected growth beyond the capacity of typical midrange servers, higher system resource utilization, system management efficiencies of server consolidation, and customer politics and preferences. Each of these reasons is coming under assault by the advancement of Moore's law, and as a result, the value proposition of large, partitionable datacenter servers is declining.
The performance improvements brought about by Moore's law over the last several years have outpaced customer workload growth, allowing midrange systems to handle the expected growth of most customer workloads. In addition, the price of midrange RISC/UNIX system has declined significantly over the last several years, starting with Sun's UltraSPARC III based V880, whose price point was then met by IBM with the POWER4-based p650, and HP's strategy of offering standard configurations of PA-RISC and Itanium midrange systems at very aggressive prices. Moore's law has caused system utilization to drop, as processors are now very powerful.
Traditional physical based partitioning, such as Sun's Dynamic System Domains and HP's Node Partitions (nPars) do not provide adequate granularity given the performance of today's processors. The result is the rise of software-based partitioning, logical partitioning, and virtual machine technology, which are portable to smaller, less expensive RISC/UNIX systems. In the case of purely software based partitioning technology, it is portable to other ISAs such as x86 platforms. For example, virtual machine technology is primarily being used on x86 systems via VMware's products. These shift in server partitioning technology are also decreasing the value proposition of large and midrange RISC/UNIX servers.
The recent emphasis in the industry for provisioning and system management solutions, along with policy-based computing solutions to manage large numbers of discreet servers has yet to significantly change the industry, however improvements in this area have improved the system management efficiencies of distributed servers. This, along with some of the inherent provisioning and management efficiencies of software-based partitioning technologies (shared network and disk resources) have resulted in a decrease in the relative value of large partitionable systems.
One should note, this decrease in value is real. It is not simply a customer perception. First, physical partitioning is simply too expensive a method to achieve partitioning in a server. Markets define prices, not vendors. Costs define margins, not prices. In a scenario with two otherwise equivalent servers, one using physical partitioning, the other using logical partitioning, the logical partitionable server will offer the vendor greater margins. Similarly, designing a server with physical partitioning which offers the same granularity as logical partitioning would likely be abandoned for having too high a cost. Second, customers really are moving workloads from previous generation large servers to smaller servers of the current generation, rather than partitions on larger current generation servers. In 1998 a Sun customer might consider paying the 50% price premium of an E10K over multiple E4500s. The value the 50% premium represented, primarily in growth capacity, justified the premium. Today the premium an E20K has over multiple V890s or V490s is so much higher (around 150% more), few customers can justify the value the E20K price premium provides.
The effect of this is a leveling of playing field between RISC/UNIX servers and x86 servers. Midrange RISC/UNIX servers are becoming simpler and cheaper. Midrange x86 servers have become more robust. RISC ISAs versus the x86 ISA is become a "Coke versus Pepsi" decision: a flavor choice.
Related Post:
x86 Rises, Part 1: The Background
Labels: Computing
Monday, June 15, 2009
Three types of people
I have come to a conclusion there are three types of people in the world:
Process people.
Idea people.
People people.
Process people.
Idea people.
People people.
Labels: Society
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
x86 Rises, Part 1, The Background
Several years ago I drafted a white paper I called "x86 Everywhere". I started it in the fall of 2004, let it sit, and updated it in April 2005. It remains unfinished, but with the release today of Intel's Nehalem processor, I took a look at it again. Here it is:
What is “x86 Everywhere”? x86 Everywhere is a concept that the dominance the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) currently has on the desktop and entry server markets will expand into the midrange and high-end datacenter server markets, eventually reaching a tipping point, and displacing most RISC/UNIX platforms. Over time the x86 ISA establishes a monopoly in the datacenter similar to its current monopoly on the desktop.
The drivers for such a scenario are purely economic, but this does not refer to server acquisition costs. Instead it refers to the economic advantages a single, dominant ISA would bring to system vendors and independent software vendors. This is not the first time such a scenario has been speculated. In the early and mid 1990s, when Microsoft announced Window NT as a portable, multiplatform operating system for both RISC and x86, many speculated Windows would become the dominant operating system and programming application binary interface (ABI) from the desktop to large datacenter servers. A few years later, many speculated Intel's IA-64 “Merced” (later branded Itanium) ISA would dominate all computers, displacing RISC from the datacenter. Desktop PCs, entry and midrange servers running Microsoft Windows and Novell Netware, and high-end datacenter servers running UNIX would all use the IA-64 architecture. Despite this speculation, few put two and two together and speculated a Windows/IA-64 monopoly platform combination. The latest domination scenario proposed a few years ago was Linux would displace all UNIX variants. In this scenario, system vendors with their own UNIX variants would simply abandon their UNIX distributions and instead port Linux to their RISC architectures. This scenario is amazingly similar to the speculation about Microsoft Windows in the mid 1990s. Then experts suggested RISC vendors would abandon their UNIX variants to instead embrace Windows.
There is a huge difference with x86 Everywhere. The difference is the current installed base of x86 systems, and the current willingness of customers to use x86 systems for critical tasks. This is not to say other ISAs will exist. While RISC/UNIX established dominance in the datacenter in the 1990s, mainframes still exist, and while x86 is dominant on the desktop, the Apple Macintosh continues to be successful as an alternative platform. However, in this scenario, traditional RISC/UNIX systems are rendered to a smaller, niche market.
Three trends could allow what I call "x86 Everywhere" to happen.
I will cover those three trends in my next post.
What is “x86 Everywhere”? x86 Everywhere is a concept that the dominance the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) currently has on the desktop and entry server markets will expand into the midrange and high-end datacenter server markets, eventually reaching a tipping point, and displacing most RISC/UNIX platforms. Over time the x86 ISA establishes a monopoly in the datacenter similar to its current monopoly on the desktop.
The drivers for such a scenario are purely economic, but this does not refer to server acquisition costs. Instead it refers to the economic advantages a single, dominant ISA would bring to system vendors and independent software vendors. This is not the first time such a scenario has been speculated. In the early and mid 1990s, when Microsoft announced Window NT as a portable, multiplatform operating system for both RISC and x86, many speculated Windows would become the dominant operating system and programming application binary interface (ABI) from the desktop to large datacenter servers. A few years later, many speculated Intel's IA-64 “Merced” (later branded Itanium) ISA would dominate all computers, displacing RISC from the datacenter. Desktop PCs, entry and midrange servers running Microsoft Windows and Novell Netware, and high-end datacenter servers running UNIX would all use the IA-64 architecture. Despite this speculation, few put two and two together and speculated a Windows/IA-64 monopoly platform combination. The latest domination scenario proposed a few years ago was Linux would displace all UNIX variants. In this scenario, system vendors with their own UNIX variants would simply abandon their UNIX distributions and instead port Linux to their RISC architectures. This scenario is amazingly similar to the speculation about Microsoft Windows in the mid 1990s. Then experts suggested RISC vendors would abandon their UNIX variants to instead embrace Windows.
There is a huge difference with x86 Everywhere. The difference is the current installed base of x86 systems, and the current willingness of customers to use x86 systems for critical tasks. This is not to say other ISAs will exist. While RISC/UNIX established dominance in the datacenter in the 1990s, mainframes still exist, and while x86 is dominant on the desktop, the Apple Macintosh continues to be successful as an alternative platform. However, in this scenario, traditional RISC/UNIX systems are rendered to a smaller, niche market.
Three trends could allow what I call "x86 Everywhere" to happen.
I will cover those three trends in my next post.
Labels: Computing
Monday, February 23, 2009
On Power and Journalism
Another great quote. This time from Jonah Goldberg:
"But it’s worth remembering that government and corporations aren’t the only institutions that can abuse power. Factions, to borrow a word from the Federalist Papers, have a power all their own. When governments cave to that power, they become mere tools of bullies. And when journalists go along for the ride, there’s no one left to speak truth to power when that is what’s needed most."
Labels: Politics and Economy
An Excellent Observation on the Financial Bailout
Great comment from Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt show last Thursday:
UPDATE: Another great comment by Steyn, where he calls the press "eunuchs to the PC sultans". That one's going to leave a mark (pun intended).
" ... what the government has been trying to do since October has been to re-inflate a credit bubble, to say that people should be able to get spectacular returns on mediocre assets as a permanent feature of life. And that is simply unsustainable. And my objection to what started back in mid-September is that no matter how much you pump into it, you cannot re-inflate a credit bubble, and you shouldn’t try. And that is something that if necessary, people have to take a bit of temporary pain ... "Steyn is exactly right. We should be trying to ensure a soft landing on a reasonable bottom (i.e., preventing the crashing through a reasonable bottom into a worse situation), we should not be trying to reinflate a balloon with a huge gash in its side. That money is lost, and worse, takes with it more.
UPDATE: Another great comment by Steyn, where he calls the press "eunuchs to the PC sultans". That one's going to leave a mark (pun intended).
Labels: Politics and Economy
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thoughts on "Great Depression 2.0"
When I was in junior high (I think it was 8th grade), my Social Studies teacher (Mr. James) made everyone in the class interview someone who had lived through the Great Depression (that would be "Great Depression 1.0", or "Great Depression 29"). For Generation X, that generally meant interviewing a grandparent.
Mr. James gave us a list of questions to ask in our interview.
So, I took my Radio Shack monoural cassette tape recorder, and interviewed my grandmother, born in 1909 (or maybe it was 1908). The one thing I remember from that interview was one question: "What ended the Great Depression?" I still remember my grandmother's answer: "The wower" That would be "The War" for those who cannot translate a southern accent. "The War" refeedr to World War II. Now, "The War" didn't happen for America until twelve years after the stock market crash, and nine years after the election of FDR.
Wasn't there a New Deal? What about the WPA? The CCC? What, building the Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams didn't pull us out of the depression? Rural Electric Administration and the TVA? Nope.
Now, after we all did our interviews, we had to listen to them. For a week, we all listened to each of the interview tapes. And the one thing I remember is almost every subject answered the "What ended the Great Depression?" question the same way: World War II.
Is there a lesson in this? Perhaps. Perhaps the lesson is spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on make-work will not pull you out of depression, but spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on trucks, tanks, airplanes, and ammo will. Perhaps the lesson is economic problems are rarely solved quickly from the bottom up (i.e., jobs programs, consumer focused programs, tax cuts to individuals, etc.). Does it mean economic problems can be solved faster at the top (money supply, business lending, business taxes, etc.)? One could say the war spending was a direct subsidy to large American industrial companies, like GM and Boeing, and the jobs were a byproduct, that is, it was top-down. Certainly the decade-long economic downturn of 1973-1984 never adequately responded to the demand side economic efforts of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and only recovered after Reagan's tight money supply and supply side focused efforts.
One thing I can say is, I can lean on that CCC-built rail at the Grand Canyon. I can use electricity from the TVA. They might not have pulled the U.S. out of depression, but one could argue we got something for the money, and some people were employed for some period of time.
But can we say the same thing about the current stimulus plan?
Mr. James gave us a list of questions to ask in our interview.
So, I took my Radio Shack monoural cassette tape recorder, and interviewed my grandmother, born in 1909 (or maybe it was 1908). The one thing I remember from that interview was one question: "What ended the Great Depression?" I still remember my grandmother's answer: "The wower" That would be "The War" for those who cannot translate a southern accent. "The War" refeedr to World War II. Now, "The War" didn't happen for America until twelve years after the stock market crash, and nine years after the election of FDR.
Wasn't there a New Deal? What about the WPA? The CCC? What, building the Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams didn't pull us out of the depression? Rural Electric Administration and the TVA? Nope.
Now, after we all did our interviews, we had to listen to them. For a week, we all listened to each of the interview tapes. And the one thing I remember is almost every subject answered the "What ended the Great Depression?" question the same way: World War II.
Is there a lesson in this? Perhaps. Perhaps the lesson is spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on make-work will not pull you out of depression, but spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on trucks, tanks, airplanes, and ammo will. Perhaps the lesson is economic problems are rarely solved quickly from the bottom up (i.e., jobs programs, consumer focused programs, tax cuts to individuals, etc.). Does it mean economic problems can be solved faster at the top (money supply, business lending, business taxes, etc.)? One could say the war spending was a direct subsidy to large American industrial companies, like GM and Boeing, and the jobs were a byproduct, that is, it was top-down. Certainly the decade-long economic downturn of 1973-1984 never adequately responded to the demand side economic efforts of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and only recovered after Reagan's tight money supply and supply side focused efforts.
One thing I can say is, I can lean on that CCC-built rail at the Grand Canyon. I can use electricity from the TVA. They might not have pulled the U.S. out of depression, but one could argue we got something for the money, and some people were employed for some period of time.
But can we say the same thing about the current stimulus plan?
Labels: Politics and Economy
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
A stuck clock moment
Even Saturday Night Live gets it right sometimes:
Now I hear George Soros and Herb and Marion Sandler are not happy with the skit, so SNL has pulled the video from the official SNL site.
Supposedly, the skit now does not meet SNL standards, and they are going to "edit" the skit.
Wait a minute, I thought it was Saturday Night Live? Did I miss something? Editing a live skit after the fact?
I guess the new Lorne Michaels is George Orwell.
Now I hear George Soros and Herb and Marion Sandler are not happy with the skit, so SNL has pulled the video from the official SNL site.
Supposedly, the skit now does not meet SNL standards, and they are going to "edit" the skit.
Wait a minute, I thought it was Saturday Night Live? Did I miss something? Editing a live skit after the fact?
I guess the new Lorne Michaels is George Orwell.
Labels: Politics and Economy
Friday, September 12, 2008
It's too bad Whoopi Goldberg did have a dad like this
Today on The View, Whoopi Goldberg showed an incredible ignorance of the United States Constitution. It made me think of this scene from the movie The Jerk:
When it comes to the Constitution, Whoopi does not know the difference between ... well, you know.
When it comes to the Constitution, Whoopi does not know the difference between ... well, you know.
Labels: Politics and Economy
