New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Preferences

· nixdoc.net

· man pages

· Linux HOWTOs

· FreeBSD Tips

· Forums

Forum index » Not Unix » VMS

New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

Page 1 of 3 [35 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

Dan Foster
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 593

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

In article <44c0b117$0$4147$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote:

Quote:

and now 64 bit machine. In the process, it has gained many more
features. So while the 8086 circa 1990 was definitely ill suited to run
VMS, the CPUs made today for that architecture have gained respectability.

Despite what Intel + AMD marketing folks would have us believe, these
product lines you are referring to are not 64-bit. It may seem so, to some,
because CPU and "memory management" functions have been integrated (read
blurred) but these CPUs are only 32 bits wide.

Er... no, the latest 64-bit processors in that family _are_ true 64 bit
processors. I'll explain in a moment, if you'll bear with me, please. :)

Quote:

To understand this better, think about the PDP-11 system which was a 16 bit
CPU. The memory management system allowed the CPU to address memory using
18-bit, 22-bit, and 24-bit access. This worked by having the CPU first
initialize MMU registers which were later combined (added) with 16-bit
addresses coming from the CPU to generate a wider address going to memory.
But there was "no way" any single process could "see" more than 16-bits of
memory at a time without first asking the OS to manipulate the associated
memory management registers.

Right: the PDP-11 had a 16-bit data bus and 16 to 22 bit address bus
depending on what memory access scheme was being used.

The data bus width is why the PDP-11 is considered to be a 16 bit
processor.

Same deal with the 65816 which was used in the Apple IIGS and Super
Nintendo systems: 16-bit data bus, 24-bit address bus, considered to be
a 16-bit processor.

However, the EM64T and AMD64 processors *are* full 64 bit internally.

They are at least 64 bits wide for the _data_ bus (as well as for the
various registers including all of the GPRs), which is the big thing.

All pointers are 64-bit. All pushes and pops for the stack is 64-bit.
(The operands are 32-bit wide, but then again, do they really need more
than ~4.2 billion defined operands?)

Accessing data in the registers and memory is not a matter of internally
stringing up two adjacent 32-bit registers or 32-bit memory addresses.
(First version of this stuff may have done that, but current versions
don't. It's a full and true 64-bit access.)

The address bus is not quite 64-bit wide in current implementations, but
likely eventually will either reach 64-bit or come closer to it --
today's implementations are still much wider than terrible 32-bit hacks
like PAE to squeeze an extra 4 bits out of addressing.

On AMD64 64-bit processors, 32-bit is available as a _compatibility mode_.
I'm not sure if it's considered to be a compat mode on EM64T.

For more detailed information about these two architectures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T

(The EM64T page is rather sparse, admittedly. AMD64 page is pretty good.)

One of the big things distinguishing EM64T and AMD64 from other
traditional 64-bit implementations such as Alpha, UltraSPARC, POWER3
(and later), Itanium, etc. is that EM64T/AMD64 has *much* fewer GPRs due
to their precedessors originally being a CISC design.

Cheers,

-Dan

Bill Todd
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 408

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:17 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

Neil Rieck wrote:

Quote:

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:44C02E7F.418AFACE@teksavvy.com...
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
[...snip....]
Remember that the 8086 has gone from a 16 bit toy controller with 640k
memory limit and segment registers into a 32 bit CPU with full features
and now 64 bit machine. In the process, it has gained many more
features. So while the 8086 circa 1990 was definitely ill suited to run
VMS, the CPUs made today for that architecture have gained respectability.

Despite what Intel + AMD marketing folks would have us believe, these
product lines you are referring to are not 64-bit. It may seem so, to some,
because CPU and "memory management" functions have been integrated (read
blurred) but these CPUs are only 32 bits wide.

To understand this better, think about the PDP-11 system which was a 16 bit
CPU. The memory management system allowed the CPU to address memory using
18-bit, 22-bit, and 24-bit access. This worked by having the CPU first
initialize MMU registers which were later combined (added) with 16-bit
addresses coming from the CPU to generate a wider address going to memory.
But there was "no way" any single process could "see" more than 16-bits of
memory at a time without first asking the OS to manipulate the associated
memory management registers.

The above is complete and utter horseshit. The most charitable
explanation I can come up with is that you're confusing the 32-bit
'programmable address extension' (PAE) mechanisms - which have existed
for a decade or so and which indeed resemble the PDP-11 memory-mapping
facilities you refer to in that they allow an IA32 process to use more
than 4 GB of physical RAM but not to see any more than 4 GB at any one
time - with the new x86-64 extensions which beyond question *do* make
x86-64 every bit as much a 64-bit architecture as the earlier x86s were
32-bit architectures. In x86-64 the registers are 64-bits wide, the
internal data paths are 64-bits wide (the first Intel variant used a
double-pumped 32-bit ALU to perform 64-bit operations, but this was as
much an optimization - in that it allowed narrower operations to execute
at twice the CPU speed - as a band-aid), and programs have access to a
flat 64-bit virtual address space without requiring any memory-mapping
assistance from software.

- bill

Bill Gunshannon
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1019

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

In article <44C02E7F.418AFACE@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:

Quote:

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
Maybe so, but after years of hearing how the x86 architecture was
unsuitable for running VMS it seems highly unlikely that the addition
of 64 bit extensions has somehow corrected all those shortcomings.

Remember that the 8086 has gone from a 16 bit toy controller with 640k
memory limit and segment registers into a 32 bit CPU with full features
and now 64 bit machine. In the process, it has gained many more
features. So while the 8086 circa 1990 was definitely ill suited to run
VMS, the CPUs made today for that architecture have gained respectability.

We aren't talking about 1990. It was as recently as 2004-2005 that
we were once again reminded that the x86 architecture was deficient
and unsuitable for VMS. They weren't talking about your beloved
8086 (which has been dead for decades!) they were talking about
current x86 architecture. Again, I am not saying it can't be done,
only that if you were waiting for VMS Engineering to "look" at it,
they have and repeatedly said it didn't meet their requirements.

Quote:

Not saying it can't be done, just that the idea that porting VMS
to IA64 somehow made it easier to port to x86 is quite a stretch.

Posting to IA64 specifically gave VMS the ability to do EFI. That meant
tweaking the file system to allow a FAT partition-in-a-VMS-file with
updates to BACKUP, INIT etc to support this.

EFI, FAT, etc. are not the CPU. It was the CPU they said were deficient,
not systems designed around it which could certainly have been changed.

Quote:

But the port just made, no matter what the target was, game VMS the
ability to have a common code base supporting multiple architectures at
the same time,

Common code base between two architectures. Alpha and IA64. What
good did that do for the VAX? If these changes don't help an already
existing architecture what possible effect could they have on an as
yet none existant architecture? And, if as they have stated in the
past, the x86 architecture is deficient how can a common code base
cure the hardware problems?

Quote:

and this allowed engineers to continue to work on VMS
while the port was being done. And a lot fo stuff was cleaned up and as
someone else said, many hardware features were moved to software, thus
making VMS less dependant on hardware.

But the CPU has been declared deficient. All the software in the world
can't fix that.

Quote:

So the next port will be easier.

Yeah, the Linux guys thought that too. Have you seen VAX Linux lately?

Quote:

True, but JF has always had this pipe dream that a bunch of engineers
are kept chained up in the basement of ZKO working 24/7 on some
mystery x86 port.

I never said they were chained Smile

:-)

Many people from HP (in a better position to know than
JF) have repeatedly stated there are no plans, at this time, to do an
x86 port.

Yes, and that is perfectly normal. Until the second when HP/Intel
announce the end of IA64, expect everyone within HP/Intel to deny any
plans to abandon IA64. Announcing plans to port VMS to the 8086 would be
tantamount to announcing the end of IA64.

"Two people can keep a secret. If one of them is dead."

Quote:

And while I may be hoping for a Covert port of VMS to the 8086 going on
right now, (the faster, the better), I think it would be realistic to
think that someone within VMS engineering has looked into the
feasability of porting VMS to a 64 bit 8086 based on EFI and reported
back to very high management

If they reported to management the same thing they reported here,
well, you should get the picture...

Quote:

and kept this very discreet.

"Two people can keep a secret. If one of them is dead."

Quote:

Note that this had happened prior to the announcement of the prematire
euthanasia of Alpha. I think it was 2 engineers that were tasked to
secretely make a feasability study of porting VMS to IA64. The rest of
the engineers were totally oblivbious to those plans.

When (and if) such a port is to be attempted it will likely get the same
fanfare as all the other ports. It is not the kind of thing that can be
kept hidden away, even if there was some business reason for doing so.

Once it is announced, you are right. But until that time, it is quite
possible to see VMS engineers talk to Intel engineers about what
features they may want in the generation of chips that would come circa
2007.

And exactly why would Intel give a rat's patootie? If it ain't needed
to run Windows, it is not sound business practice. If VMS is to run on
x86 and survive, it has to run on the same x86 exeryone else is running
on. If it is going to require modification of the CPU, it is dead.

Quote:

Also, someone would also be talking about the types of features
that would allow one to build an 8086 based Wildfire/Galaxy class machine.

Why? Didn't we just hear that Galaxy is dead?

Quote:

Again, I have to defer to the HP people who are in a better position
to know and they have repeatedly stated here that the resources no
longer exist at HP to revive the Alpha line.

Horse manure. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Only up to a point. These are businesses. All the will in the world
won't change business realities. I used to own a 1979 Triumph Spitfire.
There is a company in England that bought the factory where they used
to be made at the bankruptcy auction. They now manufacture all the
parts themselves. So, why don't they just manufacture and sell the car
again to meet the demand of enthusiasts? A breand new Triumph Spitfire
made from their parts would cost over $100,000. There are people with
the will and this company provides a way. Still doesn't make it practical.

Quote:

But there is
clearly no will at HP to revive Alpha, no will to even postpone the end
of sales date. And if the will existed, it would take a lot of creative
accounting to cost justify restarting Alpha with a huge amount of
resources to catch up.

So you basicly just supported what I said in the first place, Alpha is
a dead issue.

People need to go back and remember what Carly said. "We have burned
our boats." What does that mean for VMS? It means that HP put all its
eggs in the IA64 basket and did it very deliberately. They did all they
could to make sure there was no way to turn back. If that bodes badly
for people here, there really isn't a lot to be done about it. Unless
you know a real good boat-builder here in the brave new world.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Neil Rieck
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 274

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:44C02E7F.418AFACE@teksavvy.com...

Quote:

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
[...snip....]

Remember that the 8086 has gone from a 16 bit toy controller with 640k
memory limit and segment registers into a 32 bit CPU with full features
and now 64 bit machine. In the process, it has gained many more
features. So while the 8086 circa 1990 was definitely ill suited to run
VMS, the CPUs made today for that architecture have gained respectability.

Despite what Intel + AMD marketing folks would have us believe, these
product lines you are referring to are not 64-bit. It may seem so, to some,
because CPU and "memory management" functions have been integrated (read
blurred) but these CPUs are only 32 bits wide.

To understand this better, think about the PDP-11 system which was a 16 bit
CPU. The memory management system allowed the CPU to address memory using
18-bit, 22-bit, and 24-bit access. This worked by having the CPU first
initialize MMU registers which were later combined (added) with 16-bit
addresses coming from the CPU to generate a wider address going to memory.
But there was "no way" any single process could "see" more than 16-bits of
memory at a time without first asking the OS to manipulate the associated
memory management registers.

p.s. I remember the same thing with VAX. Memory management registers would
allow the CPU of some larger machines to access 40-bit (and 46-bit ?)
memory.

Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/openvms_demos.html

Bill Todd
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 408

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

perfnerd@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

Bill Todd wrote:
bob@instantwhip.com wrote:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=190500823
Ah, me - even an article that starts by bending over backward to try to
make Itanic look good has a lot of difficulty doing so these days - at
least if it doesn't play somewhat fast and loose with its wording.

Examples:

"Say this for Intel-after five years of [initially negligible and later
only] modest sales and [dramatically] scaled-down ambitions, it's not
[at least not yet] giving up on Itanium [at least not publicly]."
(bracketed clarifications added)

"The chips deliver more than twice the database performance of
previous-generation Itaniums [at the *chip* level, though only slightly
more *per-core* performance despite years of new development, 5x as much
L2 cache and 1.33x as much L3 cache, and significant core enhancements
like multi-threading: the rest comes from having two cores on the
chip], and draw 2.5 times less electric power [if you nimbly and
ever-so-tacitly switch the subject from the *chip* to *per-core* power:
the per-chip power is only moderately reduced]"

You are right, but it does really depend on whether you want to look at
the differences on a per core, per socket, per box, or per dollar
basis.

That was not the problem: the problem was that the article's wording
first referred explicitly to per-chip performance measurements and then
went on to state that power drain was down 2.5x *in the same context*
(when in fact it was down only 1.25x at the chip level).

That's called either linguistic incompetence or deliberate
misinformation, not mere difference of viewpoint.

Quote:

Montecito does draw less per socket than Mad9M.

As I noted above.

The Mad9M is rated at

Quote:

130Watts, while the Montecito is rated at 104Watts. That is 26% less
wattage on a per socket basis.

That is in fact 20% less wattage on a per-socket basis the way I learned
arithmetic.

Which is significant if you are buying

Quote:

based on a core count, since the same number of CPUs draw 40% the
power.

Absolutely: you can either get similar performance at less than half
the power, or over twice the performance at about the same power. But
you cannot (as the article's wording suggested) get over twice the
performance at less than half the power.

The bottom line is that the only really impressive achievement in
Montecito is its power reduction for a given level of performance:
doubling up the cores as a result of the process shrink is certainly
useful, but relatively straight-forward by comparison.

Quote:

At the box level, the new Montecito SuperDome is shown on the SPEC site
as being able to achieve a SPECint_rate2000 base of 2367 with 128 CPUs
/ 64 sockets (Jul 2006), vs 1108 for the 64/64 for the Mad9M Superdome
(Jan 2005)

Hmmm. Assuming that the results scale pretty linearly (which they seem
to these days for SPECint_rate), that's not that much of a boost per
core over Mad9M considering Montecito's L2 and L3 cache improvements,
the significantly reduced memory latency that the sx2000 chipset
supposedly provides (the 533 MHz bus speed does imply that the sx2000 is
being used, does it not?), and whatever compiler improvements occurred.

Quote:

and 1063 for the 64/32 IBM P5 595 (Oct 2004).

One might suspect that the POWER5+ when IBM sees fit to submit a
large-system configuration will enjoy a modest per-core advantage over
Montecito, given the minimal per-core advantage that Montecito and
sx2000 appear to enjoy over Mad9M and sx1000. Perhaps zx2 will uphold
Itanic's small-system honor in SPECint.

- bill

Bill Todd
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 408

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

Quote:

In article <yvWdnR1hv-4ek13ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@libcom.com>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
In article <44BFC335.32AEF7E8@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:

....

Quote:

First, porting VMS to the 8086 should be less expensive than Alpha to
IA64. They now have setup the abililty to have common code base, cleaned
up the code to make porting easier, AND have already gotten the EFI
stuff installed and running on VMS. So the port to the 8086 should cost
less and take less time.
Your smokin' again. There is little that has been made public so far that
would lead one to believe that because they ported VMS to IA64 it is now
somehow easier to port it to x86-64. The two have little if anything in
common, architecturally.
There have been more than a few things mentioned. Moving hardware
capabilities into code within VMS and things like that.

Maybe so, but after years of hearing how the x86 architecture was
unsuitable for running VMS

Wow - some people will believe anything, I guess.

Given that active investigation of porting VMS to x86 was actually under
way in the early '90s, suggesting that there's any insurmountable
obstacle (beyond major amounts of mostly-standard grunt work) involved
seems a bit unreasonable - especially now that x86 has become 64-bit.

it seems highly unlikely that the addition

Quote:

of 64 bit extensions has somehow corrected all those shortcomings.

All *what* shortcomings? Please be specific. x86-64 now has as many
registers as VAX did (not that the earlier investigation I mentioned
above seemed to have considered having only 32-bit x86's eight register
to be a show-stopper). The 'number of modes' issue has been pretty
thoroughly shown to be a non-issue AFAICT.

Quote:

Not saying it can't be done, just that the idea that porting VMS
to IA64 somehow made it easier to port to x86 is quite a stretch.

You don't think that, e.g., rewriting assembler routines in HLLs makes
porting easier? ISTR one or more of the associated engineers making
precisely this point a while ago - and explicitly stating that they took
advantage of the Itanic port to make a possible subsequent port easier.

....

Many people from HP (in a better position to know than

Quote:

JF) have repeatedly stated there are no plans, at this time, to do an
x86 port.

Many people at Intel (in an excellent position to have known the truth -
from the CEO on down) repeatedly stated that there were no plans for
extending x86 to support 64-bit operation - at a time when the support
already existed (albeit fuse-disabled) in silicon.

Companies tell customers what they want customers to believe: it
doesn't necessarily bear any close relationship with the truth.

....

Quote:

(this is where the killing of
Alpha sales at this point in time is a very wrong mistake).
Maybe, but it is a done deal as well.
This is a business decision. If the decision was changed, continuing to
manufacture and sell the current Alphas is definitely doable from a
technical perspective.

Again, I have to defer to the HP people who are in a better position
to know and they have repeatedly stated here that the resources no
longer exist at HP to revive the Alpha line.

Had you read more carefully you would have noticed that neither JF nor
Dave was talking about continuing Alpha development in any significant
sense: they were (quite explicitly, even in the material you yourself
quoted above) talking only about continuing manufacture and sales of
existing product.

And, we have been told

Quote:

that there was also some agreement regarding Alpha in the HP-Intel
deal.

We have? When, and where, and what were the details, and was there any
reason to consider the source credible?

Assuming that you're in fact referring to the Compaq-Intel deal, the
only direct assertion that *I* recall in this area was that Compaq sold
Intel only the rights to *use* the Alpha intellectual property, not
control over that property - retaining the right to do with it as it
pleased.

It is equally possible that the agreement was that they could

Quote:

no longer continue development of the Alpha.

Not IIRC according to the only people here who purported to know the
facts of the matter.

- bill

perfnerd@yahoo.com
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

Bill Todd wrote:

Quote:

bob@instantwhip.com wrote:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=190500823

Ah, me - even an article that starts by bending over backward to try to
make Itanic look good has a lot of difficulty doing so these days - at
least if it doesn't play somewhat fast and loose with its wording.

Examples:

"Say this for Intel-after five years of [initially negligible and later
only] modest sales and [dramatically] scaled-down ambitions, it's not
[at least not yet] giving up on Itanium [at least not publicly]."
(bracketed clarifications added)

"The chips deliver more than twice the database performance of
previous-generation Itaniums [at the *chip* level, though only slightly
more *per-core* performance despite years of new development, 5x as much
L2 cache and 1.33x as much L3 cache, and significant core enhancements
like multi-threading: the rest comes from having two cores on the
chip], and draw 2.5 times less electric power [if you nimbly and
ever-so-tacitly switch the subject from the *chip* to *per-core* power:
the per-chip power is only moderately reduced]"

You are right, but it does really depend on whether you want to look at
the differences on a per core, per socket, per box, or per dollar
basis.

Montecito does draw less per socket than Mad9M. The Mad9M is rated at
130Watts, while the Montecito is rated at 104Watts. That is 26% less
wattage on a per socket basis. Which is significant if you are buying
based on a core count, since the same number of CPUs draw 40% the
power.

At the box level, the new Montecito SuperDome is shown on the SPEC site
as being able to achieve a SPECint_rate2000 base of 2367 with 128 CPUs
/ 64 sockets (Jul 2006), vs 1108 for the 64/64 for the Mad9M Superdome
(Jan 2005) and 1063 for the 64/32 IBM P5 595 (Oct 2004).

Quote:

"But..." it then continues, and actually isn't all that biased thereafter.

- bill

JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:31 am Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

Quote:

Remember that the 8086 has gone from a 16 bit toy controller with 640k
memory limit and segment registers into a 32 bit CPU with full features
and now 64 bit machine. In the process, it has gained many more
features. So while the 8086 circa 1990 was definitely ill suited to run
VMS, the CPUs made today for that architecture have gained respectability.

Quote:

Not saying it can't be done, just that the idea that porting VMS
to IA64 somehow made it easier to port to x86 is quite a stretch.

Posting to IA64 specifically gave VMS the ability to do EFI. That meant
tweaking the file system to allow a FAT partition-in-a-VMS-file with
updates to BACKUP, INIT etc to support this.

But the port just made, no matter what the target was, game VMS the
ability to have a common code base supporting multiple architectures at
the same time, and this allowed engineers to continue to work on VMS
while the port was being done. And a lot fo stuff was cleaned up and as
someone else said, many hardware features were moved to software, thus
making VMS less dependant on hardware.

So the next port will be easier.

Quote:

True, but JF has always had this pipe dream that a bunch of engineers
are kept chained up in the basement of ZKO working 24/7 on some
mystery x86 port.

I never said they were chained Smile

:-)

Quote:

Many people from HP (in a better position to know than
JF) have repeatedly stated there are no plans, at this time, to do an
x86 port.

Yes, and that is perfectly normal. Until the second when HP/Intel
announce the end of IA64, expect everyone within HP/Intel to deny any
plans to abandon IA64. Announcing plans to port VMS to the 8086 would be
tantamount to announcing the end of IA64.

And while I may be hoping for a Covert port of VMS to the 8086 going on
right now, (the faster, the better), I think it would be realistic to
think that someone within VMS engineering has looked into the
feasability of porting VMS to a 64 bit 8086 based on EFI and reported
back to very high management and kept this very discreet.

Note that this had happened prior to the announcement of the prematire
euthanasia of Alpha. I think it was 2 engineers that were tasked to
secretely make a feasability study of porting VMS to IA64. The rest of
the engineers were totally oblivbious to those plans.

Quote:

When (and if) such a port is to be attempted it will likely get the same
fanfare as all the other ports. It is not the kind of thing that can be
kept hidden away, even if there was some business reason for doing so.

Once it is announced, you are right. But until that time, it is quite
possible to see VMS engineers talk to Intel engineers about what
features they may want in the generation of chips that would come circa
2007. Also, someone would also be talking about the types of features
that would allow one to build an 8086 based Wildfire/Galaxy class machine.

Quote:

Again, I have to defer to the HP people who are in a better position
to know and they have repeatedly stated here that the resources no
longer exist at HP to revive the Alpha line.

Horse manure. Where there is a will, there is a way. But there is
clearly no will at HP to revive Alpha, no will to even postpone the end
of sales date. And if the will existed, it would take a lot of creative
accounting to cost justify restarting Alpha with a huge amount of
resources to catch up.

Bill Gunshannon
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1019

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:26 am Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

In article <yvWdnR1hv-4ek13ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@libcom.com>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

Quote:

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
In article <44BFC335.32AEF7E8@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
And exactly why wold they announce that they were moving VMS to x86-64
rather than just announcing that they are concentrating on their real
business, Windows boxes, and pulling the plug on VMS?
Pride and money.

Lets look at pride: HP has to admit IA64 was a big mistake, but to make
up for it, it promises to port all its IA64 based systems to the 8086.

Too late for that. Intel already publicly admited it was a mistake and
if they had the chance to go back they wouldn't have done it. And they
have never promised to port VMS to anything beyond IA64.

That one statement from Intel is the worst thing I've seen since the
killing of Alpha. As the desire in Intel grows to dump the itanic, the
arguments to do so will grow, and it will happen.

Lets look at money:
First, porting VMS to the 8086 should be less expensive than Alpha to
IA64. They now have setup the abililty to have common code base, cleaned
up the code to make porting easier, AND have already gotten the EFI
stuff installed and running on VMS. So the port to the 8086 should cost
less and take less time.

Your smokin' again. There is little that has been made public so far that
would lead one to believe that because they ported VMS to IA64 it is now
somehow easier to port it to x86-64. The two have little if anything in
common, architecturally.

There have been more than a few things mentioned. Moving hardware
capabilities into code within VMS and things like that.

Maybe so, but after years of hearing how the x86 architecture was
unsuitable for running VMS it seems highly unlikely that the addition
of 64 bit extensions has somehow corrected all those shortcomings.
Not saying it can't be done, just that the idea that porting VMS
to IA64 somehow made it easier to port to x86 is quite a stretch.

Quote:

Also, while the IA64 port may have been a surprise to all but a very few
VMS engineers, the writing has been on the wall for years now that the
8086 is (unfortunatly) the way to go,

And yet HP has never even hinted at th possibility of porting VMS to
x86-64. As a matter of fact, HP people here have constantly stated
it was not going to happen.

Small correction, they have stated that it was not currently happening
or in planning. They don't have the authority to state that it will not
happen.

True, but JF has always had this pipe dream that a bunch of engineers
are kept chained up in the basement of ZKO working 24/7 on some
mystery x86 port. Many people from HP (in a better position to know than
JF) have repeatedly stated there are no plans, at this time, to do an
x86 port.

Quote:

and I would be very disapointed if
nobody within VMS engineering had taken a serious look at what it would
take.

My guess is they would look at it as soon as HP paid them to. Being
as they have repeatedly stated, right here, that there is no x86 port
in the works, why would any of them take the time to" look at what it
would take"?

Such a port is far from a 'midnight projects' thing.

Quote:

I would also not be surprised if the folks at HP-UX, NSK and VMS had
talks with Intel on what features they might need in the 8086 to make
porting much easier. Such features are likely to appear in the 2007 timeframe.

Why would Intel care? Their only interest right now is figuring out
how to catch back up to AMD. If VMS, HP-UX and NSK go belly up
tomorrow, it doesn't affect Intel's bottom line. Of course, that
IA64 boat anchor does!!

Gee, sounds like many of my posts from the 2001-2004 time frame.

You and many other people here who were not required to toe the HP-line.

Quote:

I fail to see the logic int his. IA64 is costing them buckets of
money. Cance3ling it would end stop the bleeding and let them cut
even more jobs making them look even better to the Casino Analysts.
It all ddpends on what sort of contracts were signed. Remember that HP
sent 3 billion bucks to Intel not too long ago (along with its remaining
chip engineers), and is also building that 10 billion fund allegedly to
help port software to that IA64 contraption. This may be structured in
such a way that you cannot cancel IA64 until a certain date.

Still smokin'. No one knows what this mythical agreement said or even
if there really is one. Of course, it could just as easily have been
an agreement to pay Intel the 10 billion dollars as reparations for
the damage keeping that IA64 thing alive this long has done.

That's correct.

My theory is just as believable (and verifiable) as yours.

Also, in 2004 when Carly would have set this in motion, it is likely
that she would have wanted to keep the door open should, by miracle,
IA64 become popular. "Give it a couple of years and then can it".

Sure glad they don't let that weed you smoke over the border.

None left after JF gets to it.

Good thing too. We already have enough spaced-out people down here.
Some of them running major corporations. :-)

Quote:

Should Intel kill IA64 prematurely, it might cost Intel mega bucks to
compensate HP, much more than paying a few engineers to thinker with the
contraption and produce a faster one every couple of years.

Not knowing what was in any of the agreements between them, it is really
impossible to say who would end out owing who if IA64 gets killed.

You keep assuming that they have any plan or even desire to migrate VMS
any further. If that were likely, considering how long it can take to
go from desire to a viable commercial product, the work would have already
begun.
Yes, it had begun and was happening in the basement of ZKO, until I
uncovered it and they quickly replaced the office furniture with
sporting equipment, removing any traces that there was ever a covert
porting effort going on Smile

;-)

Keep smokin'......

You can count on it. :-)

The VMS engineers have all the tools already to manage a porting effort.

Now there's another big assumption on your part. Being as they have
repeatedly said there is no port to x86-64, why would HP have paid
for all these tools?

If, in 2007, Intel/HP announce the end of the line for IA64, it will
probably includd one more iteration of that "thing" and last a few
years,

Nobody is buying it now, who would buy it if they announced it was a
deadend? Any further "iteration" would just be money down the toilet.

during which VMS can be ported.

And during all this time you think the IT and business world is just going
to stand still? You thhink MS won't be out there raiding what is left of
HP's customers? Or Sun? Or IBM? Or any of dozen Linux brokers?

(this is where the killing of
Alpha sales at this point in time is a very wrong mistake).

Maybe, but it is a done deal as well.

This is a business decision. If the decision was changed, continuing to
manufacture and sell the current Alphas is definitely doable from a
technical perspective.

Again, I have to defer to the HP people who are in a better position
to know and they have repeatedly stated here that the resources no
longer exist at HP to revive the Alpha line. And, we have been told
that there was also some agreement regarding Alpha in the HP-Intel
deal. It is equally possible that the agreement was that they could
no longer continue development of the Alpha. If that turned out to
be so, what incentive would Intel have to release HP from it? No, I
think as the HP denizens here have stated, Alpha is a dead issue.

Quote:

Face it, toy controller or high end chip, the 8086 is solid as a rock
with no rumours of it going away anytime soon. Move VMS to the 8086,
and you all once and for all any rumours of VMS's demise because as long
as it is profitable, there is no reason to kill it. And customers having
more confidence in a VMS rejuvenation will stay or buy in to VMS and
you'll see real growth.

Keep on smokin'......

Right now, the sad reality is that a weakened VMS is using its last
energies to try to support IA64. Move to 8086 and it is the strong 8086
(in the marketplace) that will help and support VMS and let it grow.

IA64 is a liability to VMS. 8086 would be an asset to VMS.

Probably way too little, way too late. But in any event, it isn't even
a blip on the radar and businesses are not going to wait around to see
what comes next. If we are truly seeing the last hurrah for IA64 then
we should be very concerned about the future of VMS.

Very!

So, Dave, how's the injury?

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Neil Rieck
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 274

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:25 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

"Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:+VsvlB6+v25f@eisner.encompasserve.org...

Quote:

In article <44bf5a0e$0$18489$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, "Neil Rieck"
n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:

Yes but on this side of Y2K, corporate execs have "rock star" egos. They
almost never admit they make mistakes (even when in court).

This side of Y2K corporate managers should wake up to AOL's
problem with the 2038 "bug". I just read in the Risks Digest that
it hit them already.

Most companies became aware of the "2038 bug" when they were doing their Y2K

testing. If this bug was left in place, it happened because somebody thought
they could make some more money sometime in the future (provided they are
still alive).
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/calendar_time_y2k_etc.html

Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/openvms_demos.html

Dave Froble
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1172

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

Quote:

In article <44BFC335.32AEF7E8@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
And exactly why wold they announce that they were moving VMS to x86-64
rather than just announcing that they are concentrating on their real
business, Windows boxes, and pulling the plug on VMS?
Pride and money.

Lets look at pride: HP has to admit IA64 was a big mistake, but to make
up for it, it promises to port all its IA64 based systems to the 8086.

Too late for that. Intel already publicly admited it was a mistake and
if they had the chance to go back they wouldn't have done it. And they
have never promised to port VMS to anything beyond IA64.

That one statement from Intel is the worst thing I've seen since the
killing of Alpha. As the desire in Intel grows to dump the itanic, the
arguments to do so will grow, and it will happen.

Quote:

Lets look at money:
First, porting VMS to the 8086 should be less expensive than Alpha to
IA64. They now have setup the abililty to have common code base, cleaned
up the code to make porting easier, AND have already gotten the EFI
stuff installed and running on VMS. So the port to the 8086 should cost
less and take less time.

Your smokin' again. There is little that has been made public so far that
would lead one to believe that because they ported VMS to IA64 it is now
somehow easier to port it to x86-64. The two have little if anything in
common, architecturally.

There have been more than a few things mentioned. Moving hardware
capabilities into code within VMS and things like that.

Quote:

Small correction, they have stated that it was not currently happening
or in planning. They don't have the authority to state that it will not
happen.

Quote:

Such a port is far from a 'midnight projects' thing.

Quote:

Gee, sounds like many of my posts from the 2001-2004 time frame.

Quote:

That's correct.

Quote:

My theory is just as believable (and verifiable) as yours.

Also, in 2004 when Carly would have set this in motion, it is likely
that she would have wanted to keep the door open should, by miracle,
IA64 become popular. "Give it a couple of years and then can it".

Sure glad they don't let that weed you smoke over the border.

None left after JF gets to it.

Quote:

;-)

Keep smokin'......

You can count on it. :-)

Quote:

The VMS engineers have all the tools already to manage a porting effort.

Now there's another big assumption on your part. Being as they have
repeatedly said there is no port to x86-64, why would HP have paid
for all these tools?

If, in 2007, Intel/HP announce the end of the line for IA64, it will
probably includd one more iteration of that "thing" and last a few
years,

Nobody is buying it now, who would buy it if they announced it was a
deadend? Any further "iteration" would just be money down the toilet.

during which VMS can be ported.

And during all this time you think the IT and business world is just going
to stand still? You thhink MS won't be out there raiding what is left of
HP's customers? Or Sun? Or IBM? Or any of dozen Linux brokers?

(this is where the killing of
Alpha sales at this point in time is a very wrong mistake).

Maybe, but it is a done deal as well.

This is a business decision. If the decision was changed, continuing to
manufacture and sell the current Alphas is definitely doable from a
technical perspective.

Quote:

Very!

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Bob Koehler
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1078

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

In article <44BFBEDA.EEE63B3A@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:

Quote:

Personally, I think that the HPUX HPVM thing is a base for something
greater. They will get that machine to run on the 8086 and give it the
dynamic codd translation abilities like Apple's Rosetta to run PaRisc
code in big endian. This way, customers will be able to run 80-86 native
apps direct on the base HPUX instance, and run older code on emulated
HPUX running on that base instance.

Yeah, they're going to have a problem porting HP-UX to x86 unless
someone builds a bi-endian x86.

Which is fine. They just port Tru64 UNIX to x86, ship the previously
optional SVID package as standard and make it the default interface.

Then everyboy's happy except the customers who wrote big-endian
dependant code. They either jump to Sun or port to little endian
machines from somebody.

And VMS still doesn't crash, or get hacked, or go non-deterministic.

Bill Gunshannon
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1019

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

In article <44BFC335.32AEF7E8@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:

Quote:

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
And exactly why wold they announce that they were moving VMS to x86-64
rather than just announcing that they are concentrating on their real
business, Windows boxes, and pulling the plug on VMS?

Pride and money.

Lets look at pride: HP has to admit IA64 was a big mistake, but to make
up for it, it promises to port all its IA64 based systems to the 8086.

Too late for that. Intel already publicly admited it was a mistake and
if they had the chance to go back they wouldn't have done it. And they
have never promised to port VMS to anything beyond IA64.

Quote:

Your smokin' again. There is little that has been made public so far that
would lead one to believe that because they ported VMS to IA64 it is now
somehow easier to port it to x86-64. The two have little if anything in
common, architecturally.

Quote:

Also, while the IA64 port may have been a surprise to all but a very few
VMS engineers, the writing has been on the wall for years now that the
8086 is (unfortunatly) the way to go,

And yet HP has never even hinted at th possibility of porting VMS to
x86-64. As a matter of fact, HP people here have constantly stated
it was not going to happen.

Quote:

and I would be very disapointed if
nobody within VMS engineering had taken a serious look at what it would
take.

My guess is they would look at it as soon as HP paid them to. Being
as they have repeatedly stated, right here, that there is no x86 port
in the works, why would any of them take the time to" look at what it
would take"?

Quote:

Why would Intel care? Their only interest right now is figuring out
how to catch back up to AMD. If VMS, HP-UX and NSK go belly up
tomorrow, it doesn't affect Intel's bottom line. Of course, that
IA64 boat anchor does!!

Quote:

Still smokin'. No one knows what this mythical agreement said or even
if there really is one. Of course, it could just as easily have been
an agreement to pay Intel the 10 billion dollars as reparations for
the damage keeping that IA64 thing alive this long has done.

My theory is just as believable (and verifiable) as yours.

Quote:

Also, in 2004 when Carly would have set this in motion, it is likely
that she would have wanted to keep the door open should, by miracle,
IA64 become popular. "Give it a couple of years and then can it".

Sure glad they don't let that weed you smoke over the border.

Quote:

Not knowing what was in any of the agreements between them, it is really
impossible to say who would end out owing who if IA64 gets killed.

Quote:

You keep assuming that they have any plan or even desire to migrate VMS
any further. If that were likely, considering how long it can take to
go from desire to a viable commercial product, the work would have already
begun.

Yes, it had begun and was happening in the basement of ZKO, until I
uncovered it and they quickly replaced the office furniture with
sporting equipment, removing any traces that there was ever a covert
porting effort going on Smile

Keep smokin'......

Quote:

The VMS engineers have all the tools already to manage a porting effort.

Now there's another big assumption on your part. Being as they have
repeatedly said there is no port to x86-64, why would HP have paid
for all these tools?

Quote:

If, in 2007, Intel/HP announce the end of the line for IA64, it will
probably includd one more iteration of that "thing" and last a few
years,

Nobody is buying it now, who would buy it if they announced it was a
deadend? Any further "iteration" would just be money down the toilet.

Quote:

during which VMS can be ported.

And during all this time you think the IT and business world is just going
to stand still? You thhink MS won't be out there raiding what is left of
HP's customers? Or Sun? Or IBM? Or any of dozen Linux brokers?

Quote:

(this is where the killing of
Alpha sales at this point in time is a very wrong mistake).

Maybe, but it is a done deal as well.

Quote:

Keep on smokin'......

Quote:

Right now, the sad reality is that a weakened VMS is using its last
energies to try to support IA64. Move to 8086 and it is the strong 8086
(in the marketplace) that will help and support VMS and let it grow.

IA64 is a liability to VMS. 8086 would be an asset to VMS.

Probably way too little, way too late. But in any event, it isn't even
a blip on the radar and businesses are not going to wait around to see
what comes next. If we are truly seeing the last hurrah for IA64 then
we should be very concerned about the future of VMS.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

Quote:

And exactly why wold they announce that they were moving VMS to x86-64
rather than just announcing that they are concentrating on their real
business, Windows boxes, and pulling the plug on VMS?

Pride and money.

Lets look at pride: HP has to admit IA64 was a big mistake, but to make
up for it, it promises to port all its IA64 based systems to the 8086.

Lets look at money:
First, porting VMS to the 8086 should be less expensive than Alpha to
IA64. They now have setup the abililty to have common code base, cleaned
up the code to make porting easier, AND have already gotten the EFI
stuff installed and running on VMS. So the port to the 8086 should cost
less and take less time.

Also, while the IA64 port may have been a surprise to all but a very few
VMS engineers, the writing has been on the wall for years now that the
8086 is (unfortunatly) the way to go, and I would be very disapointed if
nobody within VMS engineering had taken a serious look at what it would
take.

I would also not be surprised if the folks at HP-UX, NSK and VMS had
talks with Intel on what features they might need in the 8086 to make
porting much easier. Such features are likely to appear in the 2007 timeframe.

Quote:

I fail to see the logic int his. IA64 is costing them buckets of
money. Cance3ling it would end stop the bleeding and let them cut
even more jobs making them look even better to the Casino Analysts.

It all ddpends on what sort of contracts were signed. Remember that HP
sent 3 billion bucks to Intel not too long ago (along with its remaining
chip engineers), and is also building that 10 billion fund allegedly to
help port software to that IA64 contraption. This may be structured in
such a way that you cannot cancel IA64 until a certain date.

Also, in 2004 when Carly would have set this in motion, it is likely
that she would have wanted to keep the door open should, by miracle,
IA64 become popular. "Give it a couple of years and then can it".

Should Intel kill IA64 prematurely, it might cost Intel mega bucks to
compensate HP, much more than paying a few engineers to thinker with the
contraption and produce a faster one every couple of years.

Quote:

Yes, it had begun and was happening in the basement of ZKO, until I
uncovered it and they quickly replaced the office furniture with
sporting equipment, removing any traces that there was ever a covert
porting effort going on Smile

;-)

The VMS engineers have all the tools already to manage a porting effort.
If, in 2007, Intel/HP announce the end of the line for IA64, it will
probably includd one more iteration of that "thing" and last a few
years, during which VMS can be ported. (this is where the killing of
Alpha sales at this point in time is a very wrong mistake).

Face it, toy controller or high end chip, the 8086 is solid as a rock
with no rumours of it going away anytime soon. Move VMS to the 8086,
and you all once and for all any rumours of VMS's demise because as long
as it is profitable, there is no reason to kill it. And customers having
more confidence in a VMS rejuvenation will stay or buy in to VMS and
you'll see real growth.

Right now, the sad reality is that a weakened VMS is using its last
energies to try to support IA64. Move to 8086 and it is the strong 8086
(in the marketplace) that will help and support VMS and let it grow.

IA64 is a liability to VMS. 8086 would be an asset to VMS.

JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: Note

Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Quote:

Haff. "HP can not afford to put its customers through another
instruction-set transition." '

That makes the most sense of any of this discussion. Everything within
HP's high end relies on Itanium. HP can't let that happen, whether it
means signing blank cheques to Intel or buying them and dropping them
in the bottom of the bay to increase volumes.

There is one big caveat to that Haff statement: most HP customers have
not transitioned to that IA64 thing. So announce that HP is moving to
8086 today, and customers will then migrate from MIPS, Alpha and PaRisc
to the 8086, totally bypassing that IA64 mistake.

Customers do not like uncertainty.

As he said, HP's enterirpise products currently rely on a product whose
future is uncertain and performance curve starting to lag the 8086
simply because the 8086 is being upgraded at a faster rate.

Personally, I think that the HPUX HPVM thing is a base for something
greater. They will get that machine to run on the 8086 and give it the
dynamic codd translation abilities like Apple's Rosetta to run PaRisc
code in big endian. This way, customers will be able to run 80-86 native
apps direct on the base HPUX instance, and run older code on emulated
HPUX running on that base instance.

Google

Display posts from previous: