ldom question

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
me
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

ldom question

me
Hello all,

I am very new to sparc systems, and only just recently acquired a
sunfire v120.

I have also just recently discovered ldoms, which I find very
interesting.

My questions are:

  - Does OpenBSD's ldoms work just the same as Solaris ldoms?  ((I ask
because the man pages seem very minimal. It appears I need to read Sun's
docs to understand these ... Correct me if I am wrong, please))

  - Is this considered full virtualization?  I was under the impression
openbsd did not have , nor like virtualization.

-JF

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Paolo Aglialoro
Yes it's full virtualization, but it won't work on a V120. You need a T1000
or above.

Il 07/apr/2015 02:26, "Jeremiah Ford" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am very new to sparc systems, and only just recently acquired a sunfire
v120.
>
> I have also just recently discovered ldoms, which I find very interesting.
>
> My questions are:
>
>  - Does OpenBSD's ldoms work just the same as Solaris ldoms?  ((I ask
because the man pages seem very minimal. It appears I need to read Sun's
docs to understand these ... Correct me if I am wrong, please))
>
>  - Is this considered full virtualization?  I was under the impression
openbsd did not have , nor like virtualization.
>
> -JF
>
me
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

me
Thanks.  The T series seems plentiful enough on eBay... Is this feature stable enough for production in OpenBSD?

Please forgive my any questions.

-jf

-----Original Message-----
From: "Paolo Aglialoro" <[hidden email]>
Sent: ‎4/‎7/‎2015 4:47 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: ldom question

Yes it's full virtualization, but it won't work on a V120. You need a T1000
or above.

Il 07/apr/2015 02:26, "Jeremiah Ford" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am very new to sparc systems, and only just recently acquired a sunfire
v120.
>
> I have also just recently discovered ldoms, which I find very interesting.
>
> My questions are:
>
>  - Does OpenBSD's ldoms work just the same as Solaris ldoms?  ((I ask
because the man pages seem very minimal. It appears I need to read Sun's
docs to understand these ... Correct me if I am wrong, please))
>
>  - Is this considered full virtualization?  I was under the impression
openbsd did not have , nor like virtualization.
>
> -JF
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Paolo Aglialoro
In reply to this post by Paolo Aglialoro
It works wonderfully, thanks to Mark's beautiful job. Use man ldomctl as a
starting point.

Il 07/apr/2015 15:07, "Jeremiah Ford" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> Thanks.  The T series seems plentiful enough on eBay... Is this feature
stable enough for production in OpenBSD?

>
> Please forgive my any questions.
>
> -jf
> ________________________________
> From: Paolo Aglialoro
> Sent: ‎4/‎7/‎2015 4:47 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: ldom question
>
> Yes it's full virtualization, but it won't work on a V120. You need a
T1000
> or above.
>
> Il 07/apr/2015 02:26, "Jeremiah Ford" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am very new to sparc systems, and only just recently acquired a
sunfire
> v120.
> >
> > I have also just recently discovered ldoms, which I find very
interesting.

> >
> > My questions are:
> >
> >  - Does OpenBSD's ldoms work just the same as Solaris ldoms?  ((I ask
> because the man pages seem very minimal. It appears I need to read Sun's
> docs to understand these ... Correct me if I am wrong, please))
> >
> >  - Is this considered full virtualization?  I was under the impression
> openbsd did not have , nor like virtualization.
> >
> > -JF
> >
me
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

me
My last question, a perhaps less constructive one, why isn't this more widely used?  There are so many people running OpenBSD on Linux KVM, I would think that this is the solution they have been looking for.

Thanks again, already read the manual for ldomctl, plan on finishing reading Sun's docs next.

-jf

-----Original Message-----
From: "Paolo Aglialoro" <[hidden email]>
Sent: ‎4/‎7/‎2015 9:46 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: ldom question

It works wonderfully, thanks to Mark's beautiful job. Use man ldomctl as a
starting point.

Il 07/apr/2015 15:07, "Jeremiah Ford" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> Thanks.  The T series seems plentiful enough on eBay... Is this feature
stable enough for production in OpenBSD?

>
> Please forgive my any questions.
>
> -jf
> ________________________________
> From: Paolo Aglialoro
> Sent: ‎4/‎7/‎2015 4:47 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: ldom question
>
> Yes it's full virtualization, but it won't work on a V120. You need a
T1000
> or above.
>
> Il 07/apr/2015 02:26, "Jeremiah Ford" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am very new to sparc systems, and only just recently acquired a
sunfire
> v120.
> >
> > I have also just recently discovered ldoms, which I find very
interesting.

> >
> > My questions are:
> >
> >  - Does OpenBSD's ldoms work just the same as Solaris ldoms?  ((I ask
> because the man pages seem very minimal. It appears I need to read Sun's
> docs to understand these ... Correct me if I am wrong, please))
> >
> >  - Is this considered full virtualization?  I was under the impression
> openbsd did not have , nor like virtualization.
> >
> > -JF
> >
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Scarlett-2
On 07/04/2015 15:12, Jeremiah Ford wrote:
> My last question, a perhaps less constructive one, why isn't this more widely used?  There are so many people running OpenBSD on Linux KVM, I would think that this is the solution they have been looking for.
>
> Thanks again, already read the manual for ldomctl, plan on finishing reading Sun's docs next.
>
> -jf

Lack of mindshare is the primary reason.

"OpenBSD has no support for (amd64) virtualization" is the common
wisdom. Even if most applications people are running on their servers
are working well on sparc, it's not "cool", and might as well not exist.

For most cheap VPS providers Linux is considered the primary target,
with the exception of a few like RootBSD, where FreeBSD is the focus.
It'd be nice if there was someone providing OpenBSD-backed SPARC64, though.

me
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

me
That is actually a potential goal of mine.  I have been considering opening a hosting company.  However, until this discovery I thought I would need to settle on another host OS.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Scarlett" <[hidden email]>
Sent: ‎4/‎7/‎2015 1:31 PM
To: "Jeremiah Ford" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: ldom question

On 07/04/2015 15:12, Jeremiah Ford wrote:
> My last question, a perhaps less constructive one, why isn't this more widely used?  There are so many people running OpenBSD on Linux KVM, I would think that this is the solution they have been looking for.
>
> Thanks again, already read the manual for ldomctl, plan on finishing reading Sun's docs next.
>
> -jf

Lack of mindshare is the primary reason.

"OpenBSD has no support for (amd64) virtualization" is the common
wisdom. Even if most applications people are running on their servers
are working well on sparc, it's not "cool", and might as well not exist.

For most cheap VPS providers Linux is considered the primary target,
with the exception of a few like RootBSD, where FreeBSD is the focus.
It'd be nice if there was someone providing OpenBSD-backed SPARC64, though.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Henning Brauer-14
In reply to this post by me
* Scarlett <[hidden email]> [2015-04-07 19:32]:
> On 07/04/2015 15:12, Jeremiah Ford wrote:
> >My last question, a perhaps less constructive one, why isn't this more widely used?  There are so many people running OpenBSD on Linux KVM, I would think that this is the solution they have been looking for.
> >Thanks again, already read the manual for ldomctl, plan on finishing reading Sun's docs next.
> Lack of mindshare is the primary reason.

Well. The sparc64 ldoms are dog slow compared to the usual amd64
virtualization options, with a comparable power budget and hardware
cost rather much higher than lower. I wish it was different :(

The static config requiring a host/dom0/$preferred_nomenclature reboot
to reassign CPUs etc is also hindering - but the above really is the
killer.

> For most cheap VPS providers Linux is considered the primary target, with
> the exception of a few like RootBSD, where FreeBSD is the focus. It'd be
> nice if there was someone providing OpenBSD-backed SPARC64, though.

We use ldoms for some services internally, writing the systems
integration for automatic config/deployment, start/stop, console access
etc never made sense from the business PoV.

<shameless plug>
if you really want a sparc64 ldom, poke me and I'm sure we can work
sth out.
</shameless plug>

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP
Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS. Virtual & Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed
Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Scarlett-2
On 10/04/2015 08:36, Henning Brauer wrote:

> * Scarlett <[hidden email]> [2015-04-07 19:32]:
>> On 07/04/2015 15:12, Jeremiah Ford wrote:
>>> My last question, a perhaps less constructive one, why isn't this more widely used?  There are so many people running OpenBSD on Linux KVM, I would think that this is the solution they have been looking for.
>>> Thanks again, already read the manual for ldomctl, plan on finishing reading Sun's docs next.
>> Lack of mindshare is the primary reason.
>
> Well. The sparc64 ldoms are dog slow compared to the usual amd64
> virtualization options, with a comparable power budget and hardware
> cost rather much higher than lower. I wish it was different :(
>
> The static config requiring a host/dom0/$preferred_nomenclature reboot
> to reassign CPUs etc is also hindering - but the above really is the
> killer.
>
>> For most cheap VPS providers Linux is considered the primary target, with
>> the exception of a few like RootBSD, where FreeBSD is the focus. It'd be
>> nice if there was someone providing OpenBSD-backed SPARC64, though.
>
> We use ldoms for some services internally, writing the systems
> integration for automatic config/deployment, start/stop, console access
> etc never made sense from the business PoV.
>
> <shameless plug>
> if you really want a sparc64 ldom, poke me and I'm sure we can work
> sth out.
> </shameless plug>
>

That's a shame :/ Do you know/have any guesses where the performance
problems are coming from?

Mostly I just want something SPARC64 and small of my own, to use for
testing software and maybe working on a few ports. For the second use a
local box with radeondrm support would be more convenient, though...


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Ben Taylor
Sorry, hit reply initially, not reply all.


On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Scarlett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/04/2015 08:36, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
>> * Scarlett <[hidden email]> [2015-04-07 19:32]:
>>
>>> On 07/04/2015 15:12, Jeremiah Ford wrote:
>>>
>>>> My last question, a perhaps less constructive one, why isn't this more
>>>> widely used?  There are so many people running OpenBSD on Linux KVM, I
>>>> would think that this is the solution they have been looking for.
>>>> Thanks again, already read the manual for ldomctl, plan on finishing
>>>> reading Sun's docs next.
>>>>
>>> Lack of mindshare is the primary reason.
>>>
>>
>> Well. The sparc64 ldoms are dog slow compared to the usual amd64
>> virtualization options, with a comparable power budget and hardware
>> cost rather much higher than lower. I wish it was different :(
>>
>> The static config requiring a host/dom0/$preferred_nomenclature reboot
>> to reassign CPUs etc is also hindering - but the above really is the
>> killer.
>>
>>  For most cheap VPS providers Linux is considered the primary target, with
>>> the exception of a few like RootBSD, where FreeBSD is the focus. It'd be
>>> nice if there was someone providing OpenBSD-backed SPARC64, though.
>>>
>>
>> We use ldoms for some services internally, writing the systems
>> integration for automatic config/deployment, start/stop, console access
>> etc never made sense from the business PoV.
>>
>> <shameless plug>
>> if you really want a sparc64 ldom, poke me and I'm sure we can work
>> sth out.
>> </shameless plug>
>>
>>
> That's a shame :/ Do you know/have any guesses where the performance
> problems are coming from?
>
>
The T1000/2000 computers had a single socket CPU that was a 4, 6 or 8
cores, 4 thread/core, clock speed of 1.0Ghz, 1.2Ghz or 1.4Ghz (this tended
to be an 8 core box with 64GB or 128GB of RAM, back in the day)   A thread
was about the speed of a 400Mhz CPU, so it was really good for web servers
and oracle databases, but it's horrible for straight-line performance.  It
also only had FP unit per socket, so if you're were doing a lot of FP, it
was really bad.

The T-2 chipset (T5440 and that range) was a 1.6Ghz clock, 8 threads/core,
1 FP per core (not per socket as above), and you could get up to 4 sockets
in a box. A thread is about a 600-700Mhz CPU.

I think the T-4 chipset is a 2.8Ghz clock, 8 threads/core, 1 FP per core,
up to 4 sockets per box.  This CPU has a dynamic CPU scheuderl.  We have a
pair and are running IO Domain LDOMs for Databases.  For one of our
databases, with the primary running the LDOM 2.0 (Oracle OVM), we have the
threading model set to max-ipc, which allows us to collasce the cores so
they appear a 8 straight line cpus, instead of 64 vCPUs.  The other
database uses the normal database "max-throughput" threading model.  A
thread is about a 700-900Mhz CPU.  In max-ipc, we see 2.8Ghz cores reported.

The T-5 chipset is a 3.4 or 3.6Ghz cores, 16 threads/core, dynamic CPU
model.  In LDOM 3.0, Oracle took away the ability to change the threading
model so I don't think a  T5 can be forced to the max-ipc model anymore.

Hope that explains why a 10 year old computer doesn't have very good
performance. ;-)

>
> Mostly I just want something SPARC64 and small of my own, to use for
> testing software and maybe working on a few ports. For the second use a
> local box with radeondrm support would be more convenient, though...
>

Regards,

Ben
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Scarlett-2
On 10/04/2015 17:16, Ben Taylor wrote:

> I think the T-4 chipset is a 2.8Ghz clock, 8 threads/core, 1 FP per
> core, up to 4 sockets per box.  This CPU has a dynamic CPU scheuderl.
> We have a pair and are running IO Domain LDOMs for Databases.  For one
> of our databases, with the primary running the LDOM 2.0 (Oracle OVM), we
> have the threading model set to max-ipc, which allows us to collasce the
> cores so they appear a 8 straight line cpus, instead of 64 vCPUs.  The
> other database uses the normal database "max-throughput" threading
> model.  A thread is about a 700-900Mhz CPU.  In max-ipc, we see 2.8Ghz
> cores reported.
>
> The T-5 chipset is a 3.4 or 3.6Ghz cores, 16 threads/core, dynamic CPU
> model.  In LDOM 3.0, Oracle took away the ability to change the
> threading model so I don't think a  T5 can be forced to the max-ipc
> model anymore.
>
> Hope that explains why a 10 year old computer doesn't have very good
> performance. ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben

Thanks for the information. You're sending mail from 2020, though? Mind
sending a few lottery numbers? :)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Paolo Aglialoro
In reply to this post by Scarlett-2
Scarlett,

if you are going to keep it at home, unless u have a VERY separate room for
IT equipment, please consider that all Txxxx servers (you want ldoms, don't
you?) are as quiet as a jet about to take off... and the only electrically
cheap one is the T1000 averaging 100W. If you still want the T stuff, just
have a look at this mailing list, some days ago some machines were offered
for free.

If you just want to fiddle with sparc64 without ldoms, consider a sun4u
platform: best pizza box server is the Fire V120, while if you like jets
(but quieter ones than T series) V240s are nowadays cheap on the market; if
you instead want a workstation you can find anything from Blade 5/10 (the
cheapest in every sense) to power-hogs like 1500 and 2500.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Scarlett-2
On 10/04/2015 18:34, Paolo Aglialoro wrote:

> Scarlett,
>
> if you are going to keep it at home, unless u have a VERY separate room for
> IT equipment, please consider that all Txxxx servers (you want ldoms, don't
> you?) are as quiet as a jet about to take off... and the only electrically
> cheap one is the T1000 averaging 100W. If you still want the T stuff, just
> have a look at this mailing list, some days ago some machines were offered
> for free.
>
> If you just want to fiddle with sparc64 without ldoms, consider a sun4u
> platform: best pizza box server is the Fire V120, while if you like jets
> (but quieter ones than T series) V240s are nowadays cheap on the market; if
> you instead want a workstation you can find anything from Blade 5/10 (the
> cheapest in every sense) to power-hogs like 1500 and 2500.
>

I'm aware of the hardware available, as well as the noise and
electricity requirements. They make me sad. I used to keep jet engines
in my house, but I decided long ago that it wasn't very healthy nor
particularly economic.

It's possible access to a domain or even a shell account would meet my
needs (for now), providing that the person who owns the box is happy
with it being used for a lot of compiling and fuzz testing (under nice,
if need dictates).

Making sure desktop software works on sparc seems like a fun follow-up
project to my current work, but it's considerably more tedious to work
with bloated X11 applications on a remote and headless box.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ldom question

Henning Brauer-14
In reply to this post by Scarlett-2
* Scarlett <[hidden email]> [2015-04-10 15:59]:
> On 10/04/2015 08:36, Henning Brauer wrote:
> >Well. The sparc64 ldoms are dog slow compared to the usual amd64
> >virtualization options, with a comparable power budget and hardware
> >cost rather much higher than lower. I wish it was different :(
> That's a shame :/ Do you know/have any guesses where the performance
> problems are coming from?

nothing specific to ldoms, the sparc64 machines are just not remotely
en par with semi-current amd64 hardware. neither regarding absolute
performance, power consumption <-> performance ratio, or hw cost.

unfortunately.

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP
Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS. Virtual & Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed
Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/

Loading...