AMD & Red Hat Demo Live Migration Across Vendor Platforms

[CopperFangunlimited]

yo instale ubuntu 9,10 y tiene la misma opción

[lambutan82]

Is virtual machine software they are running from RedHat or is it a 3rd party VM software like VirtualBox?

[Intermernet]

I think it might be a development build of oVirt. If you haven't checked it out, it's pretty awesome. Open Source data-center software. scalable from single cpus to huge clusters and networks. It exclusively uses KVM.

[iamjacobnz]

Lol but this allready exists. And large enterprises like IBM and EDS already have these programs. They're data centers already run heavily on vm. They can move vm's across servers automaticly when one application starts using more resources. So whats the point of this?

[0sopolare]

Those VMs you're talking about rely on having expensive zSeries (mainframe) or pSeries hardware. This is being demonstrated on PC hardware. The big proprietary hw/sw vendors are way ahead of the commodity PC market. However unless you have million bucks lying around you won't be able to make much use of IBM's vm technology.

[iamjacobnz]

Oh now I see what amd is doing here. looks good.

[yulei666]

牛B

[mirezwer]

great :)

[ehurtley]

Did anyone else notice that when they migrated from the Intel server to the Shanghai server that the load on the Shanghai server went up higher than it had been on the Intel server? (aka, the same VM uses more resources on the AMD.)

Are the two servers comparable? Is the AMD a quad-core while the Intel an eight-core?

(Really, guys, you should have migrated from an old/slow Intel to a new/fast AMD, not the other way around...)

[bencoder]

I imagine that's because he said the machine was already running a bunch of VMs, so they added more VMs to it when they migrated, of course it's gonna have higher cpu load if that's the case. If i'm wrong then I'd agree.

[G00glieS]

Which virtualization solution did they use??

[rc55]

The Inquirer's article said they can't be sure, but it's probably an internal build of KVM. Not sure what front end that is, looks pretty neat - also, I'm wondering how they can stream video to a client like that anyway - any ideas?

[G00glieS]

Probably it was X traffic?

[klingoman]

burn!

[Berndk]

This is rather stupid. You can't safely hot migrate between AMD and Intel CPUs. The two CPU architectures are too different. It may work in some instances, but not in general. You wouldn't cross a busy street with your eyes closed, even if it works 5 out of 10 times.

[qwertymac93]

both are x86, both support sse3.0, ummm. also, intels x86-64 is EXACTLY the same as amd64.

[ccanaves]

So what?? Both run the same software. That's all it matters in the end.

[amonsterinlaw]

Do you actually comprehend what it's all about? Which both ???

This is an excellent engineering work.

[ccanaves]

It seems that you don't understand what's going on. I said "both" for both Intel and AMD, and I was answering to Berndk's comment.

[gunteman]

Live migration means migrating application state / memory between virtual machines, and doing that between different CPU families is indeed excellent engineering work. So much so that I'm not sure I trust that it works..

[RedBrain812]

The thing with kvm is ... its amazing!!!!!!

Its just the best, that patch for cross cpu live migration has been on the mailing list for quite some time!

[DeadFredVideo]

AMD FTW :)

Really hoping you pull off the Deneb Phenoms, would love to see AMD getting bench scores up there with the Core i7's :) Not likely but meh :)

[helldrell666]

The nehalem is screaming fast.I am a hardcore AMD fan.But, if they are not gonna pull out something great soon to compete with the nehalems, im gonna get the core i7 920 for myself.

The Denebs should at least win against the Penryns.

[Ndogg012]

Intel OWNS AMD by a long shot!

[Sha1dov]

Technically Intel does not own AMD.

[SirDaniloOliveira]

@Sha1dov Yes, it does, as Intel is licensing AMD x86_64 technology.

[JDRyder15]

not really, The only Intel CPUs that you can say are faster are than AMD CPUs cost $1000 or more. other than that, the intel CPUs that most people buy "people that speed less than $1500 for their PC", are not faster than AMD by much, maybe a few FPS in games but nothing worth the extra $100 you spend for intel.

[Ndogg012]

well...no the 9950 x4 is 2.6GHz with 1MB of cache per core...the q6600 is 2.4GHz with 3MB of cache per core, the q6600 is more over clockable, has more cache and is a smaller manufacturing process, the q6600 beats amd's most powerful desktop cpu

q6600: $272.50

9950: $244.87 $30 more for double the performance...

[arvutihull]

q6600 is 65nm - 9950BE is 65nm

q6600 on stock speed is losing to 9850BE

q6600 overclocks better, that's truth.

For non-overclockers AMD is better (not for the rick ones)

[JDRyder15]

no the AMD phenom 9950 is only $180 on newegg and the Q6600 is not that much faster than the 9950, its not worth the money. Also you don't need anymore than a AMD64x2 6000+, at least when it comes to gaming. GPU is where it matters.

[buzzin92]

my old amd 3800+ x2 was used for gaming, great performance until it died. thats why im using an intel cpu now, 45nm 2.5ghz overclocked to 3.7ghz, 2mb cache (1mb per core) and more energy efficient and also cost less then the amd :/ amd: £65 intel: £45

[arvutihull]

Q6600 is slower than 9950 in everything, until you don't start overcloking.

[Ndogg012]

no its not, the q6600 has 8mb cache compared to 4mb cache on the 9950

[qwertymac93]

but the q6600 doesnt share its cache like barcelona does, amd chips do not need as much cache, neither does nehelem(which also has 8mb cache L3, 256kb L2)

[arvutihull]

q6600 doesen't share the cache like Phenom's does. People care about speed - and that has 9950 more than q6600 (on stock speeds!).

[Ndogg012]

people CARE about speeds, but CPUs power isnt all about speed, and besides that its only 200Mhz per core faster, big deal

[arvutihull]

then compare Phenom 9750 and q6600 - Phenom 9750 will be like 5% faster.

[Ndogg012]

if you can get proof to support this, i will believe you

[arvutihull]

I can prove it if you belive me: I have 9850 Phenom and my friend has q6600. When we compared cinebench 10 tests I got my time 1:29 and he got 1:38. When we bought coolers I managed to overclock mine to 2837mhz, he managed to overclock to 3100mhz - I got 1:17 and he got 3:06 with those clocks.

[Ndogg012]

ok so your trying to tell me, even with a faster frequency and more cache than the phenom, the phenom get 3x the performance?

[arvutihull]

of course not! I'm trying to tell you that intel does not ''OWN AMD by a long shot''. They are faster, but not that much.

[arvutihull]

oh, and I meant 1:06, not 3:06, lol, by mistake...

[Ndogg012]

ok what about the Pentium Dual Core E5200 2.5GHz 2MB Cache 45nm comnpared to the FX-62 2.8GHz 2MB Cache 90nm?

E5200: $106.26

FX-62: $797.12

(Canadian prices) you cant tell me the E5200 doesnt beat the FX-62, well it doesnt...but for price to performance...THAT owns by a long shot...

[arvutihull]

very unfair comparison - 90nm CPU core is 4 times as big as 45nm CPU core if the amount of transistors is same.

[SEJeffLinux]

Do you know why the Intel has a bigger cache? Because the AMD has an on-die memory controller and doesn't need to hit the bus. Intel is adopting the on-die mmu with Nehalem fyi. AMD did it right the first time.

[Ndogg012]

either way Intel is leading in the CPU market by quite a lot, so people shut up

[helldrell666]

Amd still has an edge in the servers area.The opetrons are still kicking xeons asses.

And the Denebs may turn up to be serious Nehalem killers.

[RickonTech]

Totally doubt it. Nehalem will wipe the floor with anything from AMD until at least the end of 2009. Quickpath is better than HT3 (more bandwidth) and Nehalem is better at FPU and Integer calculations that Deneb and even the upcoming Shanghai processor from AMD. This means Intel will rule from top to bottom. Hopefully AMD can bring out something competitive soon.

[jtaylor777]

Opinons stated as fact are a hit to your credibility, RickonTech. When will we see 2p, 4P and 8P Nehalem, Rick? And can you tell us when you tested AMD's new (unreleased) Opteron vs. Intel (unreleased) Nehalem servers?

[StevensiTX]

The AMD Core 6 is surely faster than the Nehalem, with some only 24% to maximum 44% faster than pyrene (4 core) is running.

[StevensiTX]

Yes because of the cheaply FSB bus the big

1 segment (4-8MB)Chache does the FSB and CPU Performenc improve.

That is actually the only thing Intel CPUs faster make :-)

[StevensiTX]

This Cache (6-12MB) principle applies also to the 9000 and 8000 Intel pyrene series.

[RickonTech]

Uhhh.. have you read up on Nehalem? Also worth mentioning that Shanghai (AMD's next processor) comes with.. a boost in Cache Size. The main thing that kept Core 2 moving was of course it's caching mechanism but mainly the fact that it was shared cache and that both cores communicated through the cache instead of the FSB.

[StevensiTX]

Yes I know that but I see more potential for the AMD per core than Intel.

[BorkaBonum]

Q6600 does not have 12MB Cache...

Intel overall requires overclocking to get any good value profile. Stock performance is next to always on AMDs favor, especially in the mainstream market where Athlon X2 is still fantastic.

[neyway]

AWESOME.Go AMD.

[staticxmako]

amd>intel