A very poor choice

Ubuntu 10.04 isn’t out yet. But will be soon. In it, there are some good things, some nice things. And an insanely poor choice. They are effectively preventing users with NVidia cards from using NVidia’s drivers. You have to go through some absolutely insane hoops to be able to use NVidia’s drivers. The Nouveau driver … Read moreA very poor choice

Lustre's future, part 1 of a few

[update] Jeff said substantially the same thing last year. Go figure :O
I haven’t written up my thoughts after seeing the slides, speaking with some of the support team, seeing John West and John Leidel’s discussion of Lustre 2.0 on InsideHPC
… but I need to. So here is the first (very brief) comment.
Here are a set of slides (hat tip to Chris S) which neatly summarizes what we see customers thinking.
Ignoring their relatively low performance for a moment … (7GB/s writes? we were seeing 1.5GB/s average per OSS across our 8 OSSes …. but thats for a later discussion), their concerns are what we hear quite frequently.
Customers do not want vendor lock in. Period. They would like to avoid something proprietary. Fear of bricking is huge. Anything that is proprietary is (permanently) brickable, taking lots of data/time/effort with it. This increases risks.
Oracle’s strategy around Lustre, as John noted in the summary, and from what I gleaned from the slides, is to make it more proprietary, with features/functionality being decidedly non-GPL, and using it as a lever to sell Oracle hardware, rather than a stand-alone product.
There are organizations that will benefit from this (not Oracle). Clusterstor does Lustre support, and I can vouch that they know what the heck they are doing. They set us straight very quickly (when we couldn’t even get the time of day out of Oracle). Their take is that 2.0 is GPL, so it is supportable, and there is a strong future to it. I don’t doubt their enthusiasm, as I believe that Oracle just significantly increased the demand for Clusterstor’s services.

Read moreLustre's future, part 1 of a few

color me impressed

GAMESS running on Magny Cours and Istanbul … I rebuilt them with OpenMPI 1.5 and 1.4.2. Running across 24 cores right now on each. They are running a test case now that, the previous fastest machine has been a Nehalem 3.2 GHz system. They are tearing up the track …. The sockets version isn’t as … Read morecolor me impressed

(will there be) a future for OpenSolaris?

Saw this linked to from /. . Its pretty clear that Oracle is taking a deep, long, hard look at all projects within Sun, figuring out what to keep, and what to abandon. Things which have no hope of revenue generation, or driving business in general are not likely long for this world.
This brings us to OpenSolaris. This is the “open source” version of Solaris. I put it in quotes, as it may technically be an open source license in some manner of speaking, but it is fundamentally incompatible with GPL, with Artistic, with … you name it. The code base cannot be contributed to from a GPL or other code base. There can’t be cross pollination of efforts. Which tends to cut down significant contributions from serious companies that view adding features and functionality to GPL projects as a way forward with their product offerings.
So I read this with some trepidation.
In short, Oracle is asking OpenSolaris folks to help justify its existence as something funded.

So here’s a challenge for everyone who wants to make our product even
more Open. Show us a plan for how that will ultimately generate revenue
for Oracle? The “just do it and see what happens” idea won’t fly —
management will need to have a real plan. Ideally backed up with some
research (marketing numbers, etc.) or other evidence. Remember, this is
a real business with millions of real dollars invested in it — its not
some high school economics research project.

I read this as several things. First, a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of how open source works. Second, significant concern from those who want to retain the “open source” project going forward, that they see that they need to be productive to Oracle’s bottom line.
Oracle is a business, and it wants to make money. Pure and simple. So how can a software company make money with an open source project? I mean its … like … impossible. You give away the program, code, and other bits for free … and no one will pay you for support.
Right Redhat?
As I said, a deep and thorough misunderstanding of open source.

Read more(will there be) a future for OpenSolaris?