
Red Hat Introduces Arm Server Support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux - cpeterso
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-introduces-arm-server-support-red-hat-enterprise-linux
======
wyldfire
> Our goal was to develop a single operating platform across multiple 64-bit
> ARMv8-A server-class SoCs from various suppliers while using the same
> sources to build user functionality and consistent feature set that enables
> customers to deploy across a range of server implementations while
> maintaining application compatibility.

I wonder how successful this was. Previously, all x86 CPUs (including x86_64)
would bootstrap into the same mode from 1970s CPUs and preserve all the
functionality from the original ISA (we still talk to the RTC via inb/outb,
e.g.). I suppose this changed a little bit after EFI/UEFI was offered?

ARM CPUs were not bound to this backwards compatibility so AFAIK every vendor
could implement their own bootstrapping functionality, and therefore having a
single bootloader was challenging/impossible? uboot is a popular basis
solution but IIRC everyone provides their own tweak to suit their SoC. Does
TrustZone normalize the bootstrapping process for ARM devices such that we can
write a single bootloader binary and expect it to work the same way across ARM
server SoCs?

~~~
pm215
The approach here for 64-bit ARM on servers has been to say "it must run
UEFI". Then the vendor-specifics get dealt with by UEFI and ACPI, and the
kernel can simply assume those facilities exist (and the distro can install
new kernels in the usual UEFI way without having to know how to flash them
into 500 different bootloaders). You can argue the merits and demerits of UEFI
(and people do!) but there's a lot of benefit in pushing for "all server
hardware must work like this".

~~~
mtgx
Why not Coreboot?

~~~
tscs37
Why core boot? Uefi is open source (edk, tiano) if you make it so.

Coreboot is also very x86 centric last I checked.

~~~
mtgx
Isn't UEFI way more complex? But I'm not sure if that's a problem because of
Windows and all the drivers it has to support, or if it's a problem with the
specification. I believe it was the latter? I think Google mentioned that in
its recent talk on removing Intel ME.

~~~
tscs37
UEFI is more complex but also nicer for management.

Developing a runtime on UEFI is easy to setup and get going, you don't have
that feature in coreboot.

------
SEJeff
Anyone know where one can buy an ARM server to run this on?

~~~
chr15p
Shamelessly stealing links from the discussion on
[https://lwn.net/Articles/738898/](https://lwn.net/Articles/738898/)

[https://www.avantek.co.uk/arm-
server-h270-t70/](https://www.avantek.co.uk/arm-server-h270-t70/)]

[http://www.asacomputers.com/Cavium-ThunderX-
ARM.html](http://www.asacomputers.com/Cavium-ThunderX-ARM.html)

[https://system76.com/servers/starling](https://system76.com/servers/starling)

[https://www.deltacomputer.com/hochleistungs-
rechner/stand..](https://www.deltacomputer.com/hochleistungs-rechner/stand..).

~~~
flyinghamster
I hope prices on high-performance ARM hardware can come down a bit. Currently
there's nothing between Chromebooks and $3000+ servers. On the other hand, if
I were in the market for a high-end server, it looks pretty competitive vs.
Xeon or Epyc. Any good benchmarks out there?

~~~
andreiw
[https://www.solid-run.com/marvell-armada-
family/armada-8040-...](https://www.solid-run.com/marvell-armada-
family/armada-8040-community-board/)

softiron.com for the OverDrive 1000.

~~~
flyinghamster
Hmmm, there's a lot of interesting stuff over there. If I didn't already have
a dedicated router, the ClearFog boards look like a very nice router platform.

[https://www.solid-run.com/marvell-armada-family/clearfog/](https://www.solid-
run.com/marvell-armada-family/clearfog/)

------
ComputerGuru
Does anyone know the current ARM (equipment cost + ~0.9 utilization power
costs) amortized over, say, three or five years compares to the latest
generation of Xeon and Epyc?

~~~
andreiw
[https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2017/11/08/qualcomm-
centri...](https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2017/11/08/qualcomm-
centriq-2400-worlds-first-10nm-server-processor)

------
reacweb
I had the impression that CENTOS7.3 was available on baremetal ARM64 on
scaleway since a long time. Is it really new ? Maybe I do not understand what
this announce is about.

~~~
vbezhenar
CentOS and RHEL are different distributions. CentOS supports 32-bit x86
architecture, for example, while RHEL only supports x64.

~~~
freedomben
My understanding was that CentOS is simply a rebuild of all RHEL packages with
the Red Hat branding removed. If there's different arch support tho, then
there's probably more to it than I thought.

~~~
vbezhenar
Well, basically that's right and if they're rebuilding RHEL packages anyway,
they can just rebuild them for more architectures. Of course that implies that
important packages actually support those architectures. RHEL offers more than
just binary distribution, they should support their product, so they decided
to go with less architectures than theoretically possible. That's how I see
it.

------
Daviey
ARM64 was released on Debian and Ubuntu 5 or 6 years ago.. Why has it taken
RedHat so long? They were part of the same ARM server club.

