Posts Tagged ‘a glimpse into the future’

“Hypervisor edition” – what’s that?

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

WebSphere have announced  WAS hypervisor edition.

You get an OVF package with a ready to use WAS profile running on Linux. The OVF package can be deployed on VMWare ESX/ESXi and IBM’s cludeburst appliance.
Websphere also say that they carried out WAS best-practice tuning for the OS. Not sure how mattering this tuning is considering the generic nature of WAS (different application=different tuning), and the generic drivers that a VM uses.

Joys of installation

I wonder how enterprise IT administrators would accept an OS different from what they usually roll with.

important to mention that similar zero-install pre-configured WAS environment are available on the IBM test cloud (in Beta).

The real important message made here by IBM is that the WAS hypervisor edition is only a first bird. Although naked manual WAS installation is not a biggy, IBM products running on WAS are. As the OVF standard matures and virtualization becomes the default production hosting environment, we will be seeing complex WAS based products (say Portal, and Process Server) shipped as ultra consumable OVF packages. Even a complete topology consisting of many servers can be delivered as a single OVF package.
This delivery mode is quite similar to VMWare’s software appliances, only applicable to more than one Hypervisor when packaged as OVF (theoretically).

Bad news to professional services people and install manager software developers.

IBM’s PLDE seminar 2010 – Review

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

I spent today at the IBM Programming Languages and Development Environments Seminar 2010, that took place at the beautiful Haifa Research lab mount Carmel campus. Things worth mentioning:

Gilad Bracha, father of Java Generics and auto-boxing, spent 60 minutes repenting Sun’s Java 1.0 early design mistakes, such as allowing primitives and static members into the language. IMHO the lecture itself was so-so. Gilad pointed out Java’s soft spots, but didn’t bother presenting the crowd what he views as the alternatives. What he did suggest was to check out his new baby programing language Newspeak (something for the purists I guess).

Perhaps some of Java’s charm at the early days was its simplicity and low learning curve, I’m not sure that a semantically perfect Java (could there by anything like this?) using nested classes instead of static members would have enjoyed the same mojo.

In one additional interesting lecture, Kathy Barabash, talked about how data structures with a sequential references object graph (say a LinkedList) do not allow traditional concurrent GC Tracing algorithms to scale on many-core (i.e., massive multi-core) platforms.

What good is your new 1,024 cores Intel processor if the desktop widget nuclear explosion simulation flickers because it can only scale on 400 of the available cores, right?

How does hardware evolution affect progamming language design?

Sunday, March 30th, 2008

I’ve recently watched the interesting webcast Programming Language Design and Analysis Motivated by Hardware Evolution by Professor Alan Mycroft (Webcast’s link is accessible only from within the IBM Intranet). Ahead are a few keynotes I’ve kept.

Not everything is kept linear
As chip designers continue to scale down chips and transistors, they begin hitting design walls. Some of these walls are related to the fact that as the transistors` physical size is scaled down, some other properties of the chip do not scale linearly as well. This simplest example of this are dimensions, consider length Vs surface area: reducing a square side to 50% of its original size, will causes the square surface space to reduced by 75%, not a linear change. Different electricity characteristics might change at different rates than the rate in which length is changed.

pl.gif

Where is my 12Ghz CPU?
Moore’s law, which predicts the doubling of transistors quantity on a chip every ~18 months is still in effect, sadly, this doesn’t translate into clock speed. Although that, when transistors are miniaturized the distances within the chip reduces as well, and this should mean an increase in speed, but, due to heat dispersion problems (not all dimensions shrink at the same rate, generated heat is one of them, remember?) chip designers are forced to reduce the voltage in which the chip components operate. Therefore no clock speed gain.
This enables us, however, to squeeze in more cores into that optimal one cm^2 silicon pad. Hence, the multi-core technological path that the industry had resorted to in the last couple of years.

Quad core

There’s always a trade-off
As the voltage in which the chip operates drops, chip designers are starting to face computation inaccuracy problems. How could we live in peace with these imprecision? the professor ponders, do we must insist on absolute accuracy? Consider the task of rendering video, do we really care about the correctness of each pixel on each of the frames, probably not, just remember those old analog VCR and audio cassettes, they were highly inaccurate and still were able to deliver the goods. We might decide to compromise on accuracy, some of the time, in order to benefit on speed, just another type of trade-off. Programming language designers should assist chip designers by developing programming languages that are able to operate in a world of non absolute certainty.
Also think about the build-in error correction mechanisms put in to network protocol stacks.

Better on one world, worse on the other
A major problem with multi-core chips processing, is that although inter-cores communication enjoy a high bandwidth (2.5GB/s), it is stained by a high latency (~75 clock cycles) .
Another problem is that programs are written based on a shared memory model, in which all cores must coordinate when accessing the shared main memory, core’s caches must also be refreshed quite often. While this doesn’t seems a major problem for dual or quad cores, think on how this heavily limits performance on a, not so futuristic anymore, 128 cores chip.
Trying to refrain from shared main memory access might turn the table on some of the disciplines we got accustomed to think of as obvious. For example, when you code a parametrized function you declare how parameters are passed; either by reference, or by value. Declaring this during coding time (rather then deciding this during runtime) can be regarded as “early-binding”. From a performance perspective, everybody knows that passing by reference is, almost always, faster than passing by value (assuming you don’t intend on changing the passed value). This preferred way of action might not hold true on a multi-core system that will have to incur an expensive overhead when it access the data which the reference point to in the shared main memory, no such price has to be paid if the parameter is past by value. One way in which future programming languages might deal with this is to allow for late-binding of the parameters passing method. When running on a chip with only a few cores, a pass by reference will occur, just as, when running on a cores enriched chip a pass by value will be selected. This is true when the pass by reference/value makes no difference to the program logic (no changes to the parameter’s data are visible to the method caller, nor the parameter data is accessed concurrently), and therefore both could be used interchangeably.
Future languages will need to support this “late-binding” feature and others like it.

Summing up
It will be interesting to keep follow of these hardware to software trends of mutual influences.