SEO

Two Questions related to the SunFire models: -

1.
Do E6900 and SF6900 servers represent the same SunFire model?

2.
We have an application which is currently running with SF6800 as the
base.
Now, we have a requirement to replace this machine with SF6900 model.
What will be the impact on the Application due to this upgrade?
Can the application run successfully without any changes in the other
layers of the Software stack(Firmware, patch set etc.)?

As the above information is required very urgently, prompt response
would be appreciated.

Thanks!

In article <db9bbf31.0408040653.5853a965@posting.google.com >,
qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com (qazmlp) wrote:

> Two Questions related to the SunFire models: -
>
> 1. Do E6900 and SF6900 servers represent the same SunFire model?
>
> 2. We have an application which is currently running with SF6800 as the
> base. Now, we have a requirement to replace this machine with SF6900 model.
> What will be the impact on the Application due to this upgrade?
> Can the application run successfully without any changes in the other
> layers of the Software stack(Firmware, patch set etc.)?
>
> As the above information is required very urgently, prompt response
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!

You haven't described what this application does, how it does it, what
other dependent software it requires, other systems it communicates
with, maintenance it requires (e.g. backups, any sort of database
compression, etc.). Many user applications don't rely on OS patches
unless they use a facility in the OS that's being patched. Firmware is
used for hardware to talk to the OS. How are we supposed to know?

Best guess, based on your post is "it depends".

This is really up to you to figure out, isn't it?

--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...

qazmlp wrote:
> Two Questions related to the SunFire models: -
>
> 1.
> Do E6900 and SF6900 servers represent the same SunFire model?

Yes; I think E6900 is just a confusion of SF6900 with the old
Enterprise range like the E6000 and E6500. The SunFire range
have never been known as "E..." as far as I remember.

> 2.
> We have an application which is currently running with SF6800 as the
> base.
> Now, we have a requirement to replace this machine with SF6900 model.

Replace or upgrade? The SF6800 can accept US-IV cpus if you also
perform the power supply upgrade.

> What will be the impact on the Application due to this upgrade?
> Can the application run successfully without any changes in the other
> layers of the Software stack(Firmware, patch set etc.)?

Yes, this a guarantee that Sun makes (I believe you'll find it on
the website somewhere). Our OS and platforms offer full forward
binary compatability (ie, as long as it's compiled on the same
release or older you can run it on a current machine, provided
of course that the application sticks to the defined APIs etc
and passes the appcert etc tests).

In the case that you're upgrading the cpus not bringing in a whole
new chassis your OS won't even be changing (there are patches
required to support US-IV - you may be running them already;
even if not it does not affect whether things will run correctly
or not. If your installing a new machine there's no reason to
believe the application should misbehave any more than it might
have done on your current setup. The patches required are
for the cpu driver etc to understand two cores per physical cpu -
but your application sees no changes (other than additional
virtual cpus).

Gavin

> As the above information is required very urgently, prompt response
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!

In comp.unix.solaris qazmlp <qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> 1.
> Do E6900 and SF6900 servers represent the same SunFire model?

Technically there is no such thing as the SF6900. The old model is the
"Sun Fire 6800", generally shortened to "F6800" or "SF6800". The new
model is the "Sun Fire E6900", or simply the "E6900". You will need to
ask marketing why this is the case...

So yes, they are the same thing.

> 2.
> We have an application which is currently running with SF6800 as the
> base.
> Now, we have a requirement to replace this machine with SF6900 model.
> What will be the impact on the Application due to this upgrade?
> Can the application run successfully without any changes in the other
> layers of the Software stack(Firmware, patch set etc.)?

The E6900 requires a mimimum of Solaris 8 2/04 or Solaris 9 4/04. Other
than that (and any other flow-on effects) there shouldn't be any major
differences in going to the E6900. Performance will almost certainly be
better (although this does depend on your application), but due to the
backwards compatibility inherent in Sun hardware and Solaris your app
should still work as expected even if it was originally written for
SunOS 4 on a 690MP!

Scott

Gavin Maltby <G_a_v_i_n.M_a_l_t_b_y@sun.com> wrote:
> > Two Questions related to the SunFire models: -
> > 1.
> > Do E6900 and SF6900 servers represent the same SunFire model?
>
> Yes; I think E6900 is just a confusion of SF6900 with the old
> Enterprise range like the E6000 and E6500. The SunFire range
> have never been known as "E..." as far as I remember.

The following SUN site has mentioning of only E6900 and not SF6900:
http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/

> > 2.
> > We have an application which is currently running with SF6800 as the
> > base.
> > Now, we have a requirement to replace this machine with SF6900 model.
>
> Replace or upgrade? The SF6800 can accept US-IV cpus if you also
> perform the power supply upgrade.

Sorry, my post was slightly misleading. Actually, we do not want to
replace SF6800 completely with SF6900, but to upgrade the Hardware of
SF6800 to make it SF6900.
Here is where, we would like to focus on: Do we have to replace only
the SF6800:CPU boards with the SF6900:CPU boards? Are there any other
hardware upgradation needs to be done?

> > What will be the impact on the Application due to this upgrade?
> > Can the application run successfully without any changes in the other
> > layers of the Software stack(Firmware, patch set etc.)?
>
> Yes, this a guarantee that Sun makes (I believe you'll find it on
> the website somewhere). Our OS and platforms offer full forward
> binary compatability (ie, as long as it's compiled on the same
> release or older you can run it on a current machine, provided
> of course that the application sticks to the defined APIs etc
> and passes the appcert etc tests).

Ok!

> In the case that you're upgrading the cpus not bringing in a whole
> new chassis your OS won't even be changing (there are patches
> required to support US-IV - you may be running them already;
> even if not it does not affect whether things will run correctly
> or not. If your installing a new machine there's no reason to
> believe the application should misbehave any more than it might
> have done on your current setup. The patches required are
> for the cpu driver etc to understand two cores per physical cpu -
> but your application sees no changes (other than additional
> virtual cpus).
Thanks for the information!

In comp.unix.solaris qazmlp <qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> The following SUN site has mentioning of only E6900 and not SF6900:
> http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/

Correct. Officially it's the Sun Fire E6900.

> Sorry, my post was slightly misleading. Actually, we do not want to
> replace SF6800 completely with SF6900, but to upgrade the Hardware of
> SF6800 to make it SF6900.

The only upgrade from a 6800 to a 6900 involves a forklift. Roll out the
6800 and roll in the 6900.

That said, you can install UltraSPARC IV boards in the 6800 - even
removing the existing US-III boards if you want to. So you'll end
up with a 6800 with all US-IV boards - but it's still not an E6900.

Scott

Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message news:<1091961142.136331@docbert>...
> > Sorry, my post was slightly misleading. Actually, we do not want to
> > replace SF6800 completely with SF6900, but to upgrade the Hardware of
> > SF6800 to make it SF6900.
>
> The only upgrade from a 6800 to a 6900 involves a forklift. Roll out the
> 6800 and roll in the 6900.
>
> That said, you can install UltraSPARC IV boards in the 6800 - even
> removing the existing US-III boards if you want to. So you'll end
> up with a 6800 with all US-IV boards - but it's still not an E6900.
Ok, in that case, I am just curious to know what are the other
upgrades that are required to make 6800 as really equivalent to 6900.