storage search
SPARC Product Directory - since 1992
from the makers of
sparc product directory

Unsafe At Any Speed?

Looking under the hood at Sun's recent server engine problems

Sun's cache memory problem:- What did Sun know? When did Sun know it? And what did Sun do about it? - a critical commentary.
article by Peter Baston - January- 2002
Failure model flaws in SSDs
Surviving SSD sudden power loss
Bad block management in flash SSDs
Caching software and SSD appliances
Looking Back on Sun's Cache Memory Problem
Radiation effects and soft errors in integrated circuits and electronic devices - book cites this article
Editor's intro:- in 1965 Ralph Nader wrote a book called "Unsafe At Any Speed" to expose design flaws with the Chevrolet Corvair manufactured by GM.

In 2001 Sun's cache memory problems caused millions of dollars of wasted time in corporate America and shattered the myth of Sun server reliability. Sun's reported communications about this subject have tried to pass the buck to a major supplier, IBM. But Sun could have designed around this problem, or detected it earlier.

Why another article on Sun's cache memory problems? Well, even if you've already read many of those, this new article by Peter Baston includes useful comparisons on the approach of different SPARC systems vendors and data on "failures in time" for different models of SPARC systems, which you may find very interesting.

Disclaimer:- The views represented in this article are those of the author. As in previous articles, the SPARC Product Directory invites a representative from any of the companies named in the article to contact the editor about serious errors in facts or interpretation. Such corrections or differing views will, if deemed meritorious, will be added to this article or our news pages.
SSD ad - click for more info
Peter Baston
About the author: Peter Baston.
A seasoned professional with more than 20 years experience in the field of advanced product development and implementation for the high tech industry, He is the founder of IDEAS, which works with a broad spectrum of Fortune 500 companies, transitioning and implementing new development concepts from theory to use and operation.

He is known as the Logic Man, someone who brings perfect clarity to complex systems His experience ranges from advanced MIS/IT systems, software to hardware to networks and how they interrelate to business core practices and rules. He has also spent many years as a turn around specialist for major US financial and VC companies, with problem investments, who needed rapid understanding of complex technological companies.

He grew up in England and Rhodesia in Africa, now Zimbabwe, which as he often says is the perfect environment to study totally opposite systems and beliefs in how to get "Nowhere with Everything" and "Everywhere with Nothing".

He holds an MBA in Business with specialization in Marketing from URHO and is a frequent speaker and lecturer, communicator on his favorite subject " How complex systems can be made to IMPROVE the quality of life" Peter avidly champions the philosophies of Don Norman, Allan Cooper, Richard Feynman, Seth Goodin, George Gilder, Oliver Sacks, David Macauly and Lewis Mumford and believes no University Technical or Business graduate should be released into the real world until they have mastered. Terry Prachett's Discworld series

UpSuite HA
UpSuite HA from
Continuous Computing

Force Computers - CPCI-550
cPCI SPARC processors
from Force Computers

Themis RES-2014
rugged SPARC servers

SSD ad - click for more info

The recent comments by Sun Microsystems' Chairman and CEO, Scott McNealy, are extremely interesting and shows the absolute importance of truth and candor by senior executives of any company. Often the first signs of deeper problems within the company come from very simple statements by executives that later appear to be misleading and incorrect. Once corporate credibility has been lost it takes years to recover, and sometimes never does.

Lets take a very candid look at the comment (reported in a Computerworld article November 27, 2001)

Q: We reported last year about the problem with the external memory cache on UltraSPARC IIs that was causing a lot of Ultra Enterprise servers to crash. Is that something you're still grappling with, or is it history?
A. We're no longer buying IBM SRAM [static random-access memory]. They were the biggest source of the problem for us. They knew about it before, and they didn't tell us. But we don't have that issue anymore. We designed IBM out of that and put [error checking and correcting logic] across the entire cache architecture.
The Shell Game

As we all know the real purpose of a shell game is to distract the viewer from where the REAL situation is.

What really WAS the defect: ----Where should we look for the REAL problem.

The industry has been rife with rumor and innuendo for three years, not helped by the fact the parts of SUN still today denies there is a problem. No statement has ever been issued by Sun's corporate office to clarify and no clear corporate policy has ever been introduce to rectify the problem.. ScottM seems be pointing at normal day to day QA problems and outside suppliers. Sun takes a risk by subcontracting the majority of its work to third parties, and in doing so bears the responsibility ensuring compliance. This comment seems to say this is really no big deal and not worth talking about. Classic Shell Game. Watch this hand not THAT one.

The truth is far more serious.

In my view, the real major defect was the complete lack of design of Error Correction in level 1 and 2 of the CPU cache of the UltraSPARC II Sun's flagship CPU processor.

Error Detection and Correction Primer

Transient errors (as opposed to permanent errors due to device failures) can occur in all digital systems. They can be caused by electrical noise, ambient radiation, clock jitter and other causes. As far back as 1948, R.W. Hamming of Bell Labs developed a general theory for error-correcting schemes in which "check-bits" are interspersed with information bits to form binary words in patterns. These are now reffered to as Hamming codes.

The rate of failure, and consequences, if uncorrected, are important parameters in system design. Communications systems always use error correction, because the total environment is not under the control of the designer. Memory and storage systems are particularly vulnerable, because they can capture and store a transient error bit which might have no effect in another part of the system. Error detection and correction codes have been in the Digital Design textbooks for over 3 decades, and got a good press in the early 1980's, as a way of fixing soft errors caused by alpha particle radiation in the 64k bit RAM generation. Chip manufacturers later found that alpha particle emitters were contaminents in commonly used chip packaging materials, and removed this prime cause. ECC stayed in large memory systems because it fixed transient problems from many causes including some types of device failures.

As a general rule, in all electronic devices, transfer rates are increasing as time goes on. Also, errors will occur more frequently in any kind of storage device because manufacturers are squeezing more bits into smaller and smaller spaces. As speed and density increase, error correction becomes a necessity because a smaller energy disturbence source can trigger a false bit.

Error checking technologies used in processor boards can be categorised as follows:-
BEST: ECC (Error Correction Code) ECC can detect and correct single-bit errors. It is used in high-end PC's and servers.
Medium: Parity This is the most common used method. It can detect errors, but not correct them.
Cheapest: Non-Parity Because there has been an increased quality of memory components and an infrequency of errors, more and more manufacturers do no include error checking capabilities. This also lowers the cost of the PC. Only used in lower end hardware.

Now, assuming You are the leader in your industry, Marketing says that you make the Rolls Royce, DELUXE product, that's why you command the top $$$$ prices. Which one do you use: Sun's answer on the UltraSPARC II was the cheapest: NONE, no EEC on your primary L1 cache and cheap non-recoverable parity on L2. In my view this is not a minor issue it's a MAJOR design problem.

table 1
100 FIT is a failure about once every thousand years - Editor

As everyone knows most companies today subcontract the majority of the actual product work to outside original equipment manufacturers and Sun is no exception, BUT, the final quality of the product is the foremost responsibility of the brand manufacturer, in this case SUN. There is even a rumor that extensive email went from both the SUN CPU suppliers to Sun about this design and its potential failure problem..

Let's say you are Ford motor company you assemble most of your products, Dana Assembly sends you complete auto chassis for your top of the line model, but forgets or intentionally does not, because they where directed not to, put brakes on the chassis, Ford assembles and distributes, again without the brakes. Customer has an accident, no brakes. Who is liable. Doesn't take a genius to figure it would be Ford..

But you say " Who would be nuts enough to leave out the brakes?"

My point with ECC " Who would..."

NO other enterprise vendor uses any of the cheaper options ALL use ECC, it's a cost issue plain and simple, ECC costs 30% more to include and so Suns bean counters killed it in the design faze.

OK let's move on,

You know you have a problem with the design of you ENTIRE premium product range, what do you do?

  1. Be entirely honest and tell your customers what's up and how you are going to fix it.
  2. Try and blame someone else.
  3. Go into Denial, that anything is wrong.

SUN still today is oscillating between 2 and 3 . hoping that the problem will disappear, but as we know it's a SUN engineering design problem and they don't vanish, they are like pesky relatives, they hang around forever.

The first people Sun blamed for the problem was its customers and now its suppliers.

What would make them do this?

Maybe it's the fear of the potential liability? That's speculation of course, but let's look at the kind of impact this problem can have for a customer who encounters the problem.

The following is a true story, and like every exciting tale, names and places have been eliminated to protect the innocent....

Take a typical $100 million dollar a year financial company whose entire company operation runs on SUN hardware running Solaris software with Server client desktop Sunrays. The ideal perfect utopia SUN customer.

SUN's market pitch when the customer bought the system was, Large, fast rock solid reliable, easy to maintain, central servers running thin desktop clients. The best of the best, the premier UNIX based business system. SUNs marketing argument is that desktop PCs attached to smaller servers have a high maintenance and failure rate, therefore bigger more reliable servers with less intelligent desktop units is much better. Pay big bucks up front and get the best of bread. True argument as far as it goes except when the big SUN server fails more often than its humble PC desktop. At least with the cheaper PC, even when a server fails some form of local work can still be done. Primary SUN server is down and so is your entire company.

One day a central tier one primary application server just quits and brings the entire companies business to a grinding halt. The corporate Sysad's are rapidly getting older and white haired trying to trace the problem without success, screams are now being heard from the corporate wing "What the hell have you clowns done" and other juicy comments. . Luckily enough they have also bought the best support package possible " GOLD", they call the support hotline and a local support swat team is dispatched, they too cannot find the problem and so they take the entire server apart and reassemble it and guess what, it starts up and runs with no problem.

Big sigh of relief and our MIS/IT system heroes go of to fight another battle.

A week later, same problem, this repeats itself again and again and again and again. After rebuilding the server several times SUN tech support points fingers at the network, the operators, the cabling, the VAR, the corporate sysad's, the environment even outer space, that's right OUTER SPACE. At one time cosmic rays got the blame. The reader will not be faulted if you think here SUN is creating Science Fiction. The company client thought so to.

Let's highlight the Value added reseller here. The VAR, who originally introduced the client company to the SUN product range. The entity that is most trusted by the corporate client. Right in the middle of this HURRICANE of a problem "SUN fires the VAR" Incredibly stupid because the VAR now goes to represent another UNIX vendor. Who do you think the corporate client REALLY trusts.

At each step of the way large $$$ sums are spent by the company to comply with SUN's recommended directives. Events go on for a period of three years until with luck, string and bailing wire, relative stability is created but no real solution has been found.. Today the company can only get basic stability running an older version of Solaris 2.6 mixed with 2.7 that has been superseded by 2.8 and so support is iffy at best. With three versions of Solaris active in the corporate MIS/IT systems, NEW problems arise. Sun advises the client to upgrade all systems to the latest Solaris OS 2.8 but cannot tell the client HOW. Several times the company wants to trash the entire system and rebuild it with another vendor's, but exactly how do you rebuild an operation system used on a daily basis. It's like changing and rebuilding a supertanker fully loaded in the middle of an ocean storm.

Company costs for , Employee time, both technical management and operational, physical, structural, environmental , incremental expenses can easily be in the $millions and lets not forget it's a financial company who, when electronic transaction die in mid process has to manually audit them, add the inconvenience issue and its several $$$ Million.

Now comes a bombshell! The corporate client finds out from an independent source that the problem really is a design defect in the UltraSPARC II CPU of the SUN hardware. SUN has known this all along but followed a disinformation, smoke and mirrors strategy to cloud the issue. That means SUN was aware of the potential problem in the design phase of the UltraSPARC II several years earlier, its actions forward where pure posturing.

A smart liability attorney will tell you that potential lawsuits could be $$$ MULTI MILLION.

How widespread is the problem : Potentially every UltraSPARC II system that Sun makes from the humble Ultra to the E250 / E450 / E4500 all the way to the E10000K. Sun has had thousands of unresolved complaints. So potential liability could be in the $$$$ Billions.

As any good attorney will tell you, in a liability issue, the quicker you confess a known problem and take steps to rectify it, the better you look when you eventually end up in court, as you surely will. The more you try and cover up, the worse your crime becomes Even US Presidents have fallen, not for the offense itself, but for the cover up..

Why on earth would a premier supplier even risk this type of stupidity?

Well the deep dark secret of the MIS/IT world is that Sun knew that a rampant disease had spread through the industry. Its name "WANBIGAWUN". Probably 60% of Enterprise systems are over designed originally at the tier one level. Many of the early Sun installations hardly ever broke a sweat in the normal day to day operations. The hardware and software vendors also helped with the pre- design capacity planning configurations with no more tools than great WAGS.

At budget time the vengeance of the nerds predominated. The same humble corporate been-counter who the week before had been giving the MIS/IT Sysad grief for buying magic markers that cost an extra 50c now was being told that the new email server would HAVE to be an EWUNKAY 32 processor box running the world. "Yup we gotta havit – Yup we will grow into it" ( maybe in 50 years ) ha ha. Several companies ( many .com) and scientific research institutions used the main enterprise servers as nothing more than boxes with lights on to impress visitors, investors and donors. Install the EWUNKAY put it in self test and leave it, don't even connect it to the network. Many large .coms and research start ups did not even have a single UNIX Sysad on its staff.

Now all this is well and good. You know that the client probably will never take your deluxe buggy ( server) that's supposed to be able to go 1000 miles an hour and carry 200 people past 20mph with 4 up, BUT, and this is a big BUT, what happens when the customer / client starts to crank up the load as technology advances beyond anything you imagined when you designed it. Woops the wheels fall off. -----------Not Good.

That's what happened and is still happening to the Sun UltraSPARC II Servers.

OK: now we have established, What Scott M or SUN corporate knew and when he/they knew about it. I happen to know that Scott personally got a detailed email about this one.

Now lets see what SUN did to rectify it

Without letting on to the customer what the problem really was.

As with every story there are villains and heroes, some of the true heroes are within Sun itself. The Sun local technical support team in particular did everything possible to placate and work with the client many times with total non support even being directly attacked from the rest of the Sun organization. These guys and gals stand tall, they tried and tried, Heroes every one of them.

Now lets point to a BIGGIE villain, a whole group. Sun Sales/Marketing/Professional Services and Leasing (SSMPSL) . Now as you recall the VAR has been terminated and SSMPSL, has direct access to the customer. SSMPSL used ever trick in the book to turn this issue in to a revenue generating situation to benefit SUN. Blame the network, no problem give Sun professional service $100K/250K and they will pretend to fix the problem. Blame the company Sysad , same SSMPL response. Blame the local environment, you need Sun offsite hosting. Hey your system is unreliable you need SUN Disaster Recovery, Sun monitoring. Need true High availability because the customers system is failing, SSMPL says why buy more of the same, just double your budget, You need back ups for the back ups High Availability (HA) for the HA for the HA. Yes at one stage that was a suggestion, and not tongue in check either. Heard right hear at a great Sun Sales pitch.. Extend your lease spend more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

At NO time has Sun Corporate announced to the customer what the TRUE problem was or even offered restitution for the $$$$ wasted.

Multiply this thousands of times and it would be safe to say, Sun/ ScottM/Sun Corp did very little to fix the issue, in fact most of Sun made a lot of money out of it, notably SSMPSL.

Now we move to the infamous NDA ( Non Disclosure agreement )

that Scott says Sun has had for many years.

What the customer was screaming about was the clause in the NDA that seemed to give Sun total immunity for any alleged or proven wrongdoing prior to telling the customer what the alleged repair fix was. No company in there right mind would do this and this customer in particular told Sun to stick it where the Sun don't shine, pun intended.

This problem was revisited in a follow up interview of Scott McNealy, Chairman and CEO at Sun Microsystems in another Computerworld article - November 28, 2001, from which the following Q and A's are quoted.

Q. Are you fully confident that your new Sun Fire 15K server is free of this whole memory cache problem?
A. We designed all of that stuff out, yeah. In fact, all of our old products we've upgraded to mirrored SRAM. It handles it on the fly, and the problem went away. We're exceeding all of our design specs on all of our servers right now.

OK> We KNOW that the UltraSPARC II does not have the design fix so .lets look at the architecture of SparcIII on the Sun Fire 15K

Whoops : Looks like ScottM made a mistake it's only got ECC on the data at level 2, still the cheap route.

Some major companies / universities / government labs that use enterprise servers and specify ECC All level 1 @ 2 and now 3 have stopped looking at an testing the UltraSPARC III because it does not meet their basic QA requirements.

Ok lets move on again and say that--------- Sun tomorrow sees the light and falls on its sword and confesses

"Mea Culpa" yes we did wrong, we bad , we bad, but we will fix it.

Question is HOW besides opening up the corporate coffers REALLY wide and sending some ill-gotten gains back to the customer..

Sun has a whole new hardware line based on the UltraSPARC III, that is eventually intended to totally replace the infamous UltraSPARC II.

Question is ?? -- Is it any better than the UltraSPARC II.

While most enterprise vendors have to ECC on both level 1 and 2 and is introducing level 3, the UltraSPARC III only has EEC on level 2 data and parity on level 1.

What you say "But this is silly don't they ever learn"

Guess not

Has QA and manufacturing got any better?

I have seen recent Sun Boxes arrive at a clients site totally DOA with perfect test certificates attached that has the local Sun support shaking their heads in dismay. I have also traced the same all the way to non QA certified assembly shops off shore. If you run a QA due diligence on the Sun box from VAR to integrator to Source before you even get to design you find a mishmash of complying and non complying points. A real beauty is GE, a major integrator for Sun systems. Sun claims full coverage under ISO 9000, recently being upgraded to ISO 2001, Now GE does 6 Sigma which in many areas contradicts ISO. Many pre and post suppliers of both have no QA policy coverage. Let's face it you either have concise QA policy active all the way through your company to the client or you DON'T. If that's what the box goes through, imagine what is or is NOT happening under the hood. Its make you wonder to why so many QA people at Sun where pink slipped under Ed Zanders latest purge, you would think Sun would be increasing those guys. But I guess in tight times what you apparently don't see apparently doesn't matter especially when the end user is really the one who picks up the real cost..

Guess not.

Fortunately there is an out for SUN.

Solaris is and always has been the heart and sole of the Sun empire, It's the OS off choice for all major enterprise corporate and government users. It's the first OS that all major enterprise application and database vendors develop on. Its baby brother OS JAVA, in combination, makes a dynamic duo of unparalleled scope and potential. Sun simply even before the market downturn is and was trying to do to many things in to many directions and today there is a dwindling pile of cash to do them..

Cannot make money with Operating Systems and software alone you say, guess Bill Gates and Microsoft would disagree..

But what hardware will the Solaris OS run on. Well here again Sun has an out, once its gotten rid of its Dog Ridden and potentially disastrous liability hardware section. The Sparc architecture is not owned by Sun but by That means that Sun does not control who makes or operates Sparc systems and the relevant Unix OS.

There are several manufacturers that make hardware that runs Solaris flawlessly, one off which, in my opinion makes a far superior platform and that is Fujitsu

When you compare the offerings from both Sun and Fujitsu in hardware point for point the Fujitsu primepower range is by far the better.

A comment recently heard that has the ring of truth about it... Fujitsu primepower series is designed and built by engineers and the Sun UltraSPARC II and UltraSPARC III enterprise servers are designed and built by marketing people and as we have seen it shows. (Editor... that's a good soundbite but as we all know these products are designed by engineers in both companies.)

Lets look at the architecture of both lines at the CPU level

table 3

As we see even at design the Fujitsu CPU is far superior to both the UltraSPARC II and the UltraSPARC III (in its use of ECC).

But does this comply with Solaris? Yes. That's guaranteed by the independently designed and run compatibility testing run by for all SPARC processors by SPARC International, Inc.

How good are these servers in comparison the Sun-Sparc-boxes in performance?

Ok We now know that these Fujitsu PrimePowers meet the criteria of having more extensive cache memory protection than the Sun boxes right down to the CPU but how good are these servers in comparison the Sun-Sparc-boxes in performance? After all the newest Sun Servers are going to get nearly 1 GHz CPUS while the Fujitsu Prime Power are only getting 650 / 850 MHz, and are currently running at 490 MHz.

Well: let's look, the SPARC64 uses out of order execution, that means a 400htz Fujitsu CPU can out perform a faster clocked 750 MHz Sun SPARC processor by 4 to1. At the time of writing this article all the major SPARC systems database and application speed benchmarks are NOT held by a Sunfire 15K UltraSPARC III or a E10K UltraSPARC II but by a Fujitsu Primepower 2000 running Solaris 8.

Another sweet note about these Fujitsu Primepower systems...

You can upgrade all the way from 390 to 850 MHz just by swapping the CPUs, No marketing enforced forklift upgrades as with UltraSPARC II and III..

With Sun UltraSPARC II many companies can only keep stability with Solaris 2.6, or if you are lucky 2.7 and many companies have applications that only run on those OS. With all the SUN UltraSPARC III servers you HAVE to use Solaris 8 or 9. Sun has NO blueprint for these companies besides warning them that mixed Solaris environments are NOT recommended.

With Fujitsu Primepower you can use Solaris 6 - 7 – 8 in the same servers in multi domains.

Seems like an easy choice for Sun's battered customers with little problems on conversion and a great solution for ScottM.

Kill the hardware division with its potential liabilities before it kills Sun,

Even allow Sun to be totally embraced by Fujitsu and concentrate on taking Solaris and Java to the great heights that they deserve.

Peterb ---------- Ideas – Santa fe

Editor's afterword...

I'm not an apologist for Sun, but I disagree with the author on several major points in this article. Neverthless I think that the article as a whole discusses important ideas which many readers are thinking about right now, and includes much useful information along the way. So that's why I ran it.

I've added this afterword because, unless you are an experienced electronics engineer or digital systems designer, you may still come away with the wrong impression about the ECC issue and how Sun handled this at the design stage.
  • To ECC or not to ECC? My understanding is that additional ECC in Sun's cache would have masked the alluded to problems, which Sun blames on alpha particle susceptibility. Not including ECC in that part of the system was a reasonable design decision with the reliability data available to the company at the time, because a rare single bit data error would be detected in a parity protected system, and the cache can be flushed and reloaded without any ongoing data corruption.

    The real problem as described in my earlier article is that "time to market" pressures preclude long term physical system testing before products are released, and simulations don't show up all problems. Process and design problems do occur for all manufacturers from time to time. Not just Sun. ECC cannot fix all transient digital problems (for example within the processor) so where do you draw the line? For the highest reliability users need middleware and additional hardware systems in which the results from more than one system are run and compared, with software rollback to a known good state. These kinds of performance/reliability tradeoffs are economic decisions which customers have to make for themselves. Just as buying a fast sports car doesn't make you a safe driver at high speed, neither does buying a mainframe from Sun or anyone else, guarantee that your applications design is safe and sound. Users should assume that errors can occur in all digital systems, and take steps to audit their data to whatever extent is justified by their situation.
  • Fujitsu versus Sun? Fujitsu do make some excellent products, but, as I've commented before in the SPD, Fujitsu have been lamentably weak and often incompentent at the basics of marketing those products to a wider audience. In the technical arena, Fujitsu is, and has been an equal partner to Sun in the development of SPARC architecture. However, without Sun's marketing prowess, most people would never have heard of SPARC technology in the first place, and it's unrealistic, in my view to suggest that the future salvation for Sun users, worried about reliability, lies in the hands of Fujitsu.

    I've no doubt that just as Intel learned from the lessons of its own floating point Pentium bug fiasco in the 1990's, Sun is learning painful lessons from the cache reliability issue. The most difficult problems to solve are not the engineering ones, but the marketing ones of how the perception of "Sun reliability" has been changed. It'll take a lot of work to recover that .
today's SPARC news SPARC computers SBus & PCI cards
SPARC manufacturers USASun/SPARC Resellers in the USA UKSun/SPARC Resellers in the UK

SPARC(R) is a registered trademark of SPARC International, Inc. SPARC PRODUCT DIRECTORY(SM) is a service mark of SPARC International, Inc used under license by ACSL. Products using the SPARC trademarks are based on an architecture developed by Sun Microsystems, Inc.