From what I understand this is a bigger deal than it would seem. Unlike x86 where pretty much everyone builds cpus/chipset with a set baseline that is needed to boot windows ARM SOCs aren't as standardized and might have different types of buses available, might handle the boot sequence differently etc which is a difficulty for the OS and part of the reason why most ARM SOCs can't just compile and run the standard linux kernel.
Interestingly, Microsoft did something similar for their Windows Phone and tablets to make things easier on them.
Agreed. I hope this leaks into the mobile market, too, so we can finally have that standardized OS image for smartphones. I hope Android 5.0 allows for that, especially if it comes with kernel 3.8+, which I believe supports device-tree, which should make it easier to do this.
I realize we probably still won't see Samsung OS images running on Sony hardware, but it would be nice if at the very least a Sony OS image would run on ALL Sony mobile hardware, or a Samsung OS image running on ALL Samsung mobile hardware, and so on. I really hope Google and their partners have been working on this already, and it's ready for Android 5.0. It would be by far the biggest announcement for Android this year (even if it will take a bit to see the results of that with new hardware).
Not really, many of these high density ARM setups (like moonshot, etc) consist of many small servers, so that limit would apply to each server, not the whole thing.
No. If a CPU is an atom, think of the whole thing as a molecule. Things are built of many molecules, and so are server farms. They could've decided to make it 4-core only, but I guess they thought the whole system makes more sense with 8-cores. They can probably upgrade the spec in 2 years for 16-cores anyway, for 16nm-10nm processes.
It's OK for the target market of many small servers. It wouldn't work for HPC, but there you'll typically want either GPUs (or similar designs) for embarrassingly parallel tasks or fewer fat cores and unified memory for other tasks due to limited scalability. I don't see much space for solutions in between these extremes.. which is not yet covered by x86.
What I wonder, though, is if the whole concept of micro servers really makes sense from a load balancing point of view. If I'd put many more energy efficient cores into a big box and run many more VMs on them, wouldn't that be better than many small independent servers? It would still be quite energy-efficient, but the CPUs and memory can be shared among the entire system. Well, the high performance interconnects needed in this case must not consume too much power.. but I don't think this would be troublesome at 8 cores.
while this article mentions the standardization of server specs, that doesn't mean the arm cpu can't be used for anything else...
HP moonshot is the example you refer too where virtualization is not needed (yet) but specific target markets are already addressed. other types and designs will probably follow soon. It market is changing quite a bit, default server layout will change more soon.
thats true , OC the Calxeda and moonshot 32bit ARM prototypes where fine as a proof of concept, but their first product layout of their but ugly SLED's use of the available space what nothing but shameful ,tons of useless metal and wasted space in a given U configuration restricting airflow etc...
Calxeda's NOC was apparently good but they should have sacked the SLED designers , using small self contained COM (computer On Modules) and providing a simple PCB plastic slide mount at minimal distance between PCB cards to direct airflow would have been far more rewarding and cst less to produce, as you could then re-purpose these separate COM when it became time to upgrade.... it's a shame really , lets hope someone in the server space learns that lesson and provides what people want to actually buy this time around.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
14 Comments
Back to Article
kpb321 - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link
From what I understand this is a bigger deal than it would seem. Unlike x86 where pretty much everyone builds cpus/chipset with a set baseline that is needed to boot windows ARM SOCs aren't as standardized and might have different types of buses available, might handle the boot sequence differently etc which is a difficulty for the OS and part of the reason why most ARM SOCs can't just compile and run the standard linux kernel.Interestingly, Microsoft did something similar for their Windows Phone and tablets to make things easier on them.
FwFred - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link
Much needed move, good to see this is already implemented on the first AMD ARM soc.Unfortunately this underscores the challenge facing the ARM server ecosystem. x86 architecture just isn't the ISA.
Krysto - Thursday, January 30, 2014 - link
Agreed. I hope this leaks into the mobile market, too, so we can finally have that standardized OS image for smartphones. I hope Android 5.0 allows for that, especially if it comes with kernel 3.8+, which I believe supports device-tree, which should make it easier to do this.I realize we probably still won't see Samsung OS images running on Sony hardware, but it would be nice if at the very least a Sony OS image would run on ALL Sony mobile hardware, or a Samsung OS image running on ALL Samsung mobile hardware, and so on. I really hope Google and their partners have been working on this already, and it's ready for Android 5.0. It would be by far the biggest announcement for Android this year (even if it will take a bit to see the results of that with new hardware).
Hrel - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link
"As a result, the maximum number of CPUs in the system is 8"Isn't that gonna become a problem... really quickly?
bobbozzo - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link
Hrel, That's the BASE system with the base interrupt controller.extide - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link
Not really, many of these high density ARM setups (like moonshot, etc) consist of many small servers, so that limit would apply to each server, not the whole thing.Krysto - Thursday, January 30, 2014 - link
No. If a CPU is an atom, think of the whole thing as a molecule. Things are built of many molecules, and so are server farms. They could've decided to make it 4-core only, but I guess they thought the whole system makes more sense with 8-cores. They can probably upgrade the spec in 2 years for 16-cores anyway, for 16nm-10nm processes.JohanAnandtech - Thursday, January 30, 2014 - link
Exactly, this is the first spec.MrSpadge - Thursday, January 30, 2014 - link
It's OK for the target market of many small servers. It wouldn't work for HPC, but there you'll typically want either GPUs (or similar designs) for embarrassingly parallel tasks or fewer fat cores and unified memory for other tasks due to limited scalability. I don't see much space for solutions in between these extremes.. which is not yet covered by x86.What I wonder, though, is if the whole concept of micro servers really makes sense from a load balancing point of view. If I'd put many more energy efficient cores into a big box and run many more VMs on them, wouldn't that be better than many small independent servers? It would still be quite energy-efficient, but the CPUs and memory can be shared among the entire system. Well, the high performance interconnects needed in this case must not consume too much power.. but I don't think this would be troublesome at 8 cores.
duploxxx - Friday, January 31, 2014 - link
while this article mentions the standardization of server specs, that doesn't mean the arm cpu can't be used for anything else...HP moonshot is the example you refer too where virtualization is not needed (yet) but specific target markets are already addressed. other types and designs will probably follow soon. It market is changing quite a bit, default server layout will change more soon.
BMNify - Friday, January 31, 2014 - link
thats true , OC the Calxeda and moonshot 32bit ARM prototypes where fine as a proof of concept, but their first product layout of their but ugly SLED's use of the available space what nothing but shameful ,tons of useless metal and wasted space in a given U configuration restricting airflow etc...Calxeda's NOC was apparently good but they should have sacked the SLED designers , using small self contained COM (computer On Modules) and providing a simple PCB plastic slide mount at minimal distance between PCB cards to direct airflow would have been far more rewarding and cst less to produce, as you could then re-purpose these separate COM when it became time to upgrade.... it's a shame really , lets hope someone in the server space learns that lesson and provides what people want to actually buy this time around.
on a side not its funny that Microsoft have now also joined this ARM imitative :)
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9245854/Mic...
lwatcdr - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
I do not think so. This should really work well in the SAN and NAS space as well as web servers.