Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Looking forward to these chips but always have concerns for AMDs ability to execute consistently. Opteron, the original 'Sledgehammer' series was way ahead of Intel because Intel just couldn't bring themselves to put 64 bit features into their Pentium line, and AMD squirreled away that advantage by not following up, and having other issues with later spins of the Opterons.

That said, this really does look like a pretty awesome chip for data centers. I would love a dual socket mother board that had 512G of RAM 1TB of Optane memory as additional "RAM", then 16TB of NVME SSD storage, and 32 SAS/SATA channels for an effective 360TB of rotating disk (dual parity RAID 6, 30 active drives, 2 parity drives). And then make a cluster of 48 of those monsters.

Ah the places we would go and the things we would do with such a system.




>AMD squirreled away that advantage by not following up, and having other issues with later spins of the Opterons.

AMD didn't squirrel away the advantage. Intel abused their monopoly to starve out AMD by giving OEMs discounts if they agreed not to carry AMD chips. They paid a paltry 1.5B in fines for abusing their market dominance.


> They paid a paltry 1.5B in fines

they didnt https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8965e7a2-ac87...


> Looking forward to these chips but always have concerns for AMDs ability to execute consistently. Opteron, the original 'Sledgehammer' series was way ahead of Intel because Intel just couldn't bring themselves to put 64 bit features into their Pentium line, and AMD squirreled away that advantage by not following up, and having other issues with later spins of the Opterons.

That isn't really what happened though. It was a combination of two things. One was this:

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/184323-intel-stuck-wit...

The other was that it happened around the time when CPU frequencies hit the power wall. That hit the Pentium 4 especially hard, which gave AMD the advantage, but Intel's anti-competitive behavior prevented AMD from capitalizing on it. Meanwhile Intel knew the Pentium 4 was too power hungry for laptops, so they kept iterating on the Pentium M, which is what became Core. It was designed for power efficiency rather than clock speed right when clock speeds unexpectedly started getting limited by power. It wasn't expected to be faster than the Pentium 4 (at half the power), but it was, so Netburst got canceled and suddenly Intel had the advantage.

The combination of the two things meant that AMD never had a chance to really profit from its investment in Sledgehammer, which meant they didn't have the money to put into R&D and fell behind for a decade.

There is no guarantee something else won't go wrong, but the chance of that same confluence of factors happening again seems pretty unlikely.


At this point Intel isn't executing consistently either, so any customer who treats their processor vendor as "strategic" is going to pay the price.


I'm thinking a lot of their recent success may have to do with Lisa Su becoming their CEO back in 2014. She seems really smart and focused on their core business. I hope some of this success on the CPU market will bleed over to their GPU developments.


RAID 6 with 32 drives. All the things you would not do while the array is rebuilding.


I'm not sure I understand the comment.

I've used dual parity RAID systems for over a decade now and they work superbly when rebuilding even during a drive failure. (aka in 'degraded' mode). I typically run them in 22 drive sets because that is how many drives fit on a single NetApp drive shelf.


With 32 drives you should have at least 3 failure tolerances. Might even want to plan some hot spares in there. The idea is to build a large file system that won't die and take your data with it - nor introduce downtime (with a suitable failure tolerance). And of course, have an offsite backup for actually backing up your data.


Agreed with the hot spare. Typical RAID reconstruction on these systems is limited to available I/O operations (IOPS) after accounting for the number needed to meet performance goals. If these are the only drives on a fairly beefy system you have lots of extra IOPS available so you should be able to reconstruct a drive in under a day if you wanted to. There are the usual caveats about age related failures happening in groups but at least anecdotally and from what I know from the folks who work in NetApp customer support usage across a much larger population, it is quite reliable.


I aware of the issues one can have with rebuilding a large raid array. It seems like you will always hit some parity issue upon reconstruction. What is the proper approach here?


Either declustered RAID for faster rebuilds or RAID 60 with smaller stripes.


Why, RAID6 can rebuild online, because it turns temporarily into a RAID5. Even RAID5 can be used while rebuilding, in read-only mode, because data from the remaining disks is sufficient (else rebuilding won't be possible).


RAID5 can be used normally while rebuilding. Albeit at reduced performance. It's definitely NOT read only as that is effectively the same as offline in a production environment.


Depends on your usage pattern. You might be hesitant to allow writes without redundancy, especially if you store something important which is mostly read-only anyway (e.g. 95% of operations are reads).

For a large write-heavy setup + "we will restore from yesterday's backup" mode of operation, you may likely be better off with a RAID10 which is faster. (Though RAID50 and even RAID60 are a thing.)


Sure, but it's not offline, ever. The debate isn't about the best RAID level for your usage.


AMD had enough time to learn that lesson. Let's hope they did.


What would you do with such a system that is innovative and not just more of the same?!


I've been noodling on what it would take to build a generally conversational dialog machine.


That sounds like a very good start with CPUs and memory, but you need to include GPUs and network interconnect and explain what the high speed busses between all those components look like. How do you solve that?


The older you are, the better you execute things. Look at AMD 2 years ago versus now


Lots of companies get older and lose ability to execute. AMD was very old already when Opteron happened.

The age of the company in a case like this is irrelevant. What matters is current management and staff and market context.


The CEO executed it perfectly for the new chips, because they had walked that road before.

With less success then




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: