Red Hat: ARM servers will come when people crank out chips like AMD's 64-bit Seattle
Standards to lift data center boxes out of device doldrums
ARM steps up
Fortunately, no one understands these problems better than ARM itself – and no company has a more vested interest in seeing that ARM-compatible processors find their way into enterprise data centers.
The Cambridge, UK–based semiconductor design firm's first serious advance into the server market was the introduction of the 64-bit ARMv8-A architecture in 2011. While some hardware makers saw the data center opportunity early and tried to develop 32-bit ARM servers – notably the now-defunct Calxeda – those designs never gained much traction, and Masters made it clear at LinuxCon that Red Hat, at least, "doesn't have a story in the 32-bit ARM space and doesn't see a need to make one at this point."
More recently, to help address the needs of system builders in adopting ARMv8-A, ARM has developed two new platform standards, with input from Linaro, major Linux vendors, and hardware partners.
The first, the Server Base System Architecture (SBSA), describes the minimal hardware devices that an ARM system should have available in order to boot. The initial SBSA spec was released at the Open Compute Project summit in January and quickly won support from across the industry.
The second and more recent standard – first published on Tuesday of this week, just ahead of LinuxCon – is the Server Base Boot Requirements (SBBR), which describes how an ARM server system should boot.
SBBR achieves its goals by requiring hardware to comply with the latest versions of two earlier standards: the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) 2.4 and its related spec, the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) 5.1.
"There are certain expectations that software running on top of a UEFI platform can have," Masters explained. "For example, a standardized way to install an operating system kernel, and a standardized way to get certain runtime services, like the time of day. I don't have to have a special driver for the realtime clock on my platform, because I have one UEFI RTC driver and that just works."
"We're working with a lot of these vendors to review drivers and discuss things ahead of time to make sure that they're doing it right."
– Jon Masters, Red Hat
Similarly, mandating ACPI support limits the kinds of SoCs that chipmakers can design to those that are suitable for general-purpose computing.
"Again, ACPI disallows extremely complex embedded platforms. It's not something I'd recommend on every embedded device. It explicitly tells you that you can't adopt certain design philosophies, going in. It is written with servers in mind," Masters said.
What ACPI offers in exchange, the Red Hat man said, is a strong form of platform abstraction. Operating system kernels don't need to be told how to initialize each feature on a given hardware platform, or which memory addresses to use to access them. Instead, the kernel can rely on the appropriate ACPI function to turn on the serial port, for example.
Even with these standards available, it remains for server makers to implement them in a form that OS vendors can use. To help its hardware partners deliver workable designs, in July Red Hat launched its ARM Partner Early Access Program, which provides vendors with sneak peeks at early versions of what the company thinks an enterprise Linux solution for ARM will look like, even as it works to refine its own code.
"We're working with a lot of these vendors to review drivers and discuss things ahead of time to make sure that they're doing it right," Masters said.
So who among today's hardware vendors does Red Hat's chief ARM architect think is doing the job right? Not surprisingly, perhaps, at LinuxCon he gave special mention to AMD's "Seattle" SoC, which the chipmaker officially launched at the Hot Chips conference earlier this month and which Masters says is "done right in every single way."
"It's a standardized, server-grade SoC. It follows every single server design philosophy that AMD knows from working with x86, and it also follows all of the kinds of advice and guidelines that the industry has been working on over the last three years. It's a very, very nice design," Masters said.
But it's only now that the industry-wide ARM server efforts have begun to mature that AMD has been able to produce a product of such quality. Calxeda, for example – the Austin, Texas–based firm that developed some of the earliest ARM data center products but went out of business in December – didn't have the "second-mover advantage" that AMD enjoys now.
"The Calxeda guys were really wonderful people doing a really good job. I think they were bitten by being early to a new market," Masters said. "You can come early to a party, you can come on time, and you can come late. If you come early and nobody's there, then there's a problem. I think it was really just not quite the right time for them."
By most current accounts, the right time will begin later this year, with ARM servers becoming mainstream by late 2015. ®
Sponsored: What next after Netezza?