VDbench (so named for its creator, Henk Vandenbergh of Sun Microsystems, formerly StorageTek) is a truly incredible enterprise grade storage benchmark that is free and open source. In celebration of vdbench 5.02's release I thought it time we discuss it.

One of the things I love about VDbench is that its implemented in Java. Its extremely portable (Windows, Solaris, Linux, AIX, OS/X and HP/UX) and includes a both GUI and CLI interfaces. For tools like this I love having a nice soft GUI to help get your feet wet and then a CLI for the real work... makes learning so much easier.

The GUI is accessed using the "-gui" argument (ie: vdbench -gui). Its use simplistic but helps you grasp the essentials. That is, you select some storage device to benchmark, then you modify a workload/run definition which describes what work will be preformed and how, and finally you execute a run.

The CLI is similar conceptually, you create a configuration file in which you define storage devices, workloads and run definitions. To execute the run you pass the config to "vdbench" and away it goes.

Lets start with a super simple config:

*Example 1: Single run, one raw disk

*SD:    Storage Definition
*WD:    Workload Definition
*RD:    Run Definition
*
sd=sd1,lun=/dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0
wd=wd1,sd=sd1,xfersize=4096,rdpct=100
rd=run1,wd=wd1,iorate=100,elapsed=10,interval=1

First notice that we can insert comments with an asterisk. Next, we have 3 lines here:

• sd: Storage Device, this maps a name to a given physical device
• wd: Workload Definition, this describes the workload (read/write/block size/etc) and maps to one or more SD's
• rd: Run Definition, this describes the run itself, mapping to a workload and describing how it run, such as interval, total length of the run, IOrate constraints, etc.

For simple configurations like that above you'll likely only have these 3 lines, but as you get more complex you'll add them. Try this bigger configuration on for size:

sd=sd1,lun=/dev/rdsk/c0t1d0s0
sd=sd2,lun=/dev/rdsk/c3t0d0s0

wd=randomWrite,sd=sd*,readpct=0,rhpct=0,seekpct=100         
wd=seqWrite,sd=sd*,readpct=0,rhpct=0,seekpct=0
wd=randomRead,sd=sd*,readpct=100,rhpct=0,seekpct=100
wd=seqRead,sd=sd*,readpct=100,rhpct=0,seekpct=0
wd=randomRW,sd=sd*,readpct=50,rhpct=0,seekpct=100

rd=default

* Random Performance Tests
rd=default,el=1m,in=6,forx=(4K),forth=(32),io=max,pause=20
rd=run1_randomReads,wd=randomRead
rd=run2_randomWries,wd=randomWrite
rd=run3_randomMix,wd=randomRW

* Sequential Performance Tests
rd=default,el=1m,in=6,forx=(512K),forth=(32),io=max,pause=20
rd=run4_seqReads,wd=seqRead
rd=run5_seqWrites,wd=seqWrite

Here we use 2 disks instead of one, and we have multiple runs defined. The result is each run going sequentially till its done. So first my random read test goes, when its done my random write test goes, and so on until all 5 runs are done.

Lets look closer at the workloads which may be confusing at first. Consider this: "readpct=100,seekpct=100" This says 100% Read and 100% Random (seek). So that's a random read test. Whats strange at first is how you describe a sequential write test: "readpct=0,seekpct=0". See where you could get confused? There is no "writepct" or "seqpct". This may be odd but has advantages, for instance if you wanted a 60/40 R/W workload which is 50% random it would simply be: "readpct=60,seekpct=50".

Here is a view of the output you'll expect:

# ./vdbench.bash -f benr1 

Vdbench distribution: vdbench501fix1
For documentation, see 'vdbench.pdf'.
                                     
17:24:39.168 input argument scanned: '-fbenr1'
17:24:39.304 Starting slave      
17:24:39.616 All slaves are now connected
17:24:43.007 Starting RD=rd_rg-1; I/O rate: Uncontrolled MAX; Elapsed=10; For loops: threads=64
                                                                                               
Jan 26, 2010 interval        i/o   MB/sec   bytes   read     resp     resp     resp    cpu%  cpu%
                            rate  1024**2     i/o    pct     time      max   stddev sys+usr   sys
17:24:44.070        1   18382.00   143.61    8192  69.87    3.237  311.373   14.003    61.5  57.8
17:24:45.043        2   16803.00   131.27    8192  70.07    3.399  192.972   13.894    67.3  64.8
17:24:46.042        3   18560.00   145.00    8192  69.68    3.599  207.747   14.271    71.9  69.6
17:24:47.033        4   17956.00   140.28    8192  69.67    3.315  194.255   12.589    72.7  70.6
17:24:48.017        5   19263.00   150.49    8192  69.89    3.346  294.203   13.374    73.6  71.2
17:24:49.023        6   17014.00   132.92    8192  69.72    3.502  220.248   13.466    68.7  66.7
17:24:50.041        7   19367.00   151.30    8192  69.49    3.453  301.330   14.010    72.2  70.0
17:24:51.039        8   15713.00   122.76    8192  69.74    4.011  279.812   16.980    61.0  59.2
17:24:52.039        9   18643.00   145.65    8192  70.44    3.230  226.911   13.323    70.8  68.9
17:24:53.021       10   16376.00   127.94    8192  69.82    3.940  224.594   14.232    69.5  67.2
17:24:53.032 avg_2-10   17743.89   138.62    8192  69.84    3.520  301.330   14.015    69.7  67.6
17:24:53.663 Slave localhost-0 terminated                                                        
17:24:53.697 Vdbench execution completed successfully. Output directory: /root/VD/output

In addition to doing raw tests it can also preform filesystem based workloads (similar but more primitive than Filebench in this respect). Using its sister-application "SWAT" you can trace I/O and replay it through vdbench. And all sorts of other crazy fun things. Best of all is that it has a fantastic PDF manual to help you understand all the essentials.

Over the last year or so I've become a huge fan of the tool. Particularly for testing raw storage, its simply awesome to get reliable and repeatable results for device capabilities which can then be used for math in architecting solutions. When you pair up this tool with FileBench you can build a very fine-grained and realistic testbed.

The message was simple:

Today's my last day at Sun. I'll miss it. Seems only fitting to end on a #haiku. Financial crisis/Stalled too many customers/CEO no more

Please post your thoughts on Jonathan's leaving. Its a mixed emotion... on one hand he set some great goals and put a fire under things. A lot of us believed in him. And yet, he failed to execute and ultimately was responsible for Sun's demise. Could someone else have done a better job and still kept the culture alive? I don't know honestly.

I'll continue to stay neutral on the subject and reserve judgment until the behind-the-scenes stories trickle out over the next months and years. Jonathan screwed up, yes, but I think that Jonathan also got screwed himself, more than we realize. Time will tell.

In other news, Oracle is finally doing what has needed to be done for years: Oracle to Revamp Sun Supply Chain. One of the biggest complaints by customers for years has been inability to get timely delivery of systems. Its good to see signs of that era ending.

Also, Project Darkstar & Kenai are being axed. Project Kenai, a SourceForge like project hosting service provided free by Sun, will close its doors on April 2nd 2010. You have untill then to get stuff out. One of the most important projects there, Immutable Service Containers (ISC) has moved to OpenSolaris.org.

On Jan 27th Sun, as an independent company, died and Oracle's reign begins. No time was wasted. As you no doubt have noticed by now, sun.com redirects to Oracle.com, which is in keeping with its acquisition history... but even so it happened quicker than I expected. No time being wasted.

Oracle hosted a 5 hour (yes, 5) event in Redwood City (Oracle HQ) to lay out its strategy for Sun.

• Charles Phillips: Welcome and Oracle + Sun: Transforming the Industry
• John Fowler: Hardware Strategy
• Thomas Kurian: Software Strategy
• Edward Screven: Operating Systems and Virtualization
• Juergen Rottler: Customer Service and Support Strategy
• Jeff Epstein: Operational Strategy
• Larry Ellison: Oracle + Sun

Find all the above webcasts, both full and highlights, plus slide decks, here: Oracle + Sun: Transforming the IT Industry. If you only watch one, make sure to watch the final webcast with Larry which is an open Q&A.

(Selfish note: Joyent's logo is on the customers slide in the Operating Systems and Virtualization presentation. w00t.)

This is followed up by a Oracle + Sun Welcome Event world tour beginning in March. Look for an event near you.

In addition, several webcasts have been produce in the last couple weeks discussing technologies and the strategy going forward. Find them all here: Oracle + Sun Product Strategy Webcast Series.

So onto the guys who got us here in the first place.

Jonathan returns to blogging, "With the passing of that milestone, I can once again speak freely", in Where Life Takes Me Next.... He tells us how great things will be now that he's not running the company, points us to his Twitter feed, and yet again extols the brilliance of Greg Papadopoulos.

Now, I probably shouldn't pick a fight with Mr. Papadopoulos, but here goes. We hear again and again how brilliant this guy is... but look where we are. Seriously, how can you stand on the ruins of a fallen empire saved only because a neighbor took pity on us, and then tell us how brilliant one of the guys in charge was? I know I'm going to regret saying that, but he should have been smart enough to beat some sense into folks. I digress....

Scott McNealy, who took over for Jonathan either because the job wasn't getting done or because he wanted to take credit for "saving" the company (I'm not sure which yet; maybe both), sent out a old-skool company wide memo: Subject: Thanks for a great 28 years. Best summary of the situation was: "This is a very powerful merger. And way better than some of the alternatives we were facing. " Then he starts threading in capitalism, almost blaming but not blaming, the system as a whole for stacking the deck. I sense a story behind it all.

Scott gives us the answer to the horrible question "Why?!?!" We all know it, but its good to hear him admit it: "And though we did not monetize our inventions as well as we could have..." Under. Statment. Of. All Time.

Its all over folks. Oracle buys Sun, EU approved.

There will be a Oracle + Sun Strategy Update Webcast on Wed the 27th, so make sure to tune in for that. The invite was sent out yesterday, so looks like Oracle got early notice.

Just an update on the acquisition front... Oracle gets more time to respond to EC antitrust concerns. "The deadline for a final ruling has been put back to Jan. 27 from Jan. 19, which amounts to six additional working days for Oracle to win over the skeptical regulator."

It's become crystal clear, for those not following the issue, that this is really all about MySQL. As I and others have sited repeatedly, the de facto standard MySQL engine for enterprise deployments is InnoDB which is already owned by Oracle, which really puts a big dent in the argument. All this makes you wonder, would Oracle have still acquired Sun if they didn't own MySQL? I tend to think, yes. Which makes that deal seem all the more ridiculous. All the same, Sun paid $1B for it, so the suggestion that Oracle should just let that entity break back off is even more ridiculous, not to mention just bad business.

When you die, turns out there are a lot of options. See, if you go the traditional route your headed for the ground, but if you opt for cremation all sorts of options open up... such as being put into a SPARCstation IPC...

I know what your thinking... but according to some follow up by CNet this isn't a joke, its the real deal. And I kind of believe it, I personally want to be buried with a Sun E4500... just not inside it.

So to Alan, who ever you are, rest in piece my friend. In heaven there is no IT, just IT Enthusiasts telling stories forever and I'm sure the angels will have some good ones to tell to.

Ed Zander Interviews Larry Ellison at the Churchill Club on 9.21.09. I'm not seeing many people posting about this so I'm putting it out there. There are lots of rumors out there but this is the best info from the man himself. If you haven't heard of the prestigious it's "Silicon Valley's premier business and technology forum." This is where the big wigs hobnob (and if you have some cash, should too).

Is it just me or is Sun Cloud giving you Solaris/Linux/X86 flashbacks? At JavaOne they sounded entirely committed... but they've missed the deployment projections and the whole subject is very suspiciously quiet. As a Joyent employee I was frankly looking forward to the competition, because I think we could offer a better cloud using Sun resources than Sun can... but perhaps its not to be. I get the distinct feeling that it was all an effort to expand Sun's potential customer base and when Oracle came they didn't see any value in it.

Behold, the Sun Cloud:

If you've got any insight that you can publicly share, please do so.

Oracle reported that U.S. Department of Justice Approves Oracle Acquisition of Sun. This leaves the final hurdle to be blessing from the European Commission.

The initial shock of the Oracle deal is starting to fade. Without doubt there will be lingering regret, sadness, and quite rightly anger, for years to come. Some have referred to Sun as being as much a religion as a company, and for some of us that perhaps more true that we wish to admit. In that light, placations like "its business, not personal" is little consolation. We've lost something and an era has past into history, much like DEC, something is gone that we can't get back.

In the wake, there is a fear for a great many of us. A lot of us have a lot of stock in Sun Microsystems... not shares of common or preferred, but emotional, personal, professional. How many of us are known as "the Sun guy"... a great many. What happens to that intangible vested stock? What do we do?

Sound over-dramatic? I'm sure that about half of you reading this are thinking "really, life goes on, get a grip" and the other half are now struggling with an uncertainty you previously took for granted. It is to the latter that I speak.

Almost everyone seems to agree that given the choice between IBM and Oracle, the latter is better. I admit I liked IBM as a prospect only because I think that the cultures of Sun and IBM are so different that the two couldn't integrate. Rather, Sun would be like a rebel alliance deep within the deathstar. Some element of the counter-culture would survive. But Oracle... they fit almost too well, I can see the two integrating and it will force Sun's products back into that old enterprise mentality.

I think whats really changed at Sun in the last 10 years is a shift in the definition of "enterprise". It used to be those with the cash for big SPARC servers, Solaris licenses, and a passion for support contracts. The shift was for us to counter Linux by saying "everything is (or can be) enterprise"! Solaris is the premier enterprise grade operating system, and you can put it on your E10K, or your X4200, or your Supermicro, or your Asus EEE. DTrace belongs on your $500,000 server and your MacBook.

Whats the underlying problem Sun has been unwilling to face? I think its that Sun is too many things to too many people. We all have solutions for how to "fix Sun"... but all of our solutions are different. Because we all see Sun differently. My brother-in-law is one of the industries premier J2ME developers; we're on opposite parts of the same company, he could care less about the systems group, and I believe that Sun is a systems company and should focus there. As I've said many times in the past, Sun is a house divided. And for all the attempts and efforts, producing a real end-to-end offering hasn't bore enough fruit.

I think Oracle is going to do what Sun's management has been too afraid to do... their going to make the tough choices and unify the products. Its going to be painful and ugly... but they may finally align all the cogs and wheels to provide aligned solutions. They've said as much in the initial releases and I believe it thoroughly.

People keep speculating on what will survive and what will be chomped. Will Oracle kill X86? Or will they dump OpenSolaris? Or will they.... Frankly, I doubt non-overlapping products have any concern. Some of the middleware will be integrated and melt into the mix, but I think thats the extent. Rather, I expect Oracle to do a lot of pruning. Just as with gardening, you need to trim away less productive stems to channel maximum resource into those with the most promise. Therefore I think we'll see fewer offerings, but much stronger ones.

For those of us with a vested interest in Sun, I think this is a time to shine. The change will be potentially radical, and that provides an opportunity for first-mover advantage. There are going to be a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, a lot of uncertainty, and people with answers and solutions stand to gain. Consulting should be lucrative. Bloggers and writers, and those who are ready to help on mailing lists and within organizations can prosper.

The key is to pick ourselves up, individual and collectively, and be ready to embrace the change. Not because we want to, but because thats the reality of it.

If Oracle does what it seeks to do, there should more opportunity for skilled Solaris admins and developers than we've seen in several years. All that SPARC knowledge you shelved may need a refresher. And if Oracle can truly provide that end-to-end experience, there will be a tremendous need for engineers that not only understand UNIX or even Solaris, but understand DTrace and ZFS and ILOM and LDOMs and xVM and Crossbow and Zones and SPARC and Cluster and on and on. The value will come from those individuals who not just understand a given Sun technology but rather a complete integrated stack view.

Oracle's going to follow up product offerings with support and consulting... but we all know that only goes so far, the rest of us will need to go the distance.

So my advice is nothing extraordinary, but rather the obvious, as an encouragement. Soon all your skills may be required of you. We all have a head start. If Oracle puts its weight behind Solaris and even SPARC it may dislodge some of the inroads Linux has made and put Solaris back on top in the enterprises of the world. We must be ready, we must be watchful, and we must seize opportunity as it arises.

DEC went down a road of destruction. We can be thankful we've been spared a similar fate, which may well have been with IBM. As sysadmins, developers, enthusiasts, employees, partners... as a community... we've got to dust ourselves off and look ahead and look around us for all the possibilities that present themselves.

Jonathan sent a email to the company, the WSJ has reposted it here: Sun’s Schwartz Tries to Reassure His Troops in Email.

The following amazes me...

We’ve never walked away from the wholesale reinvention of business models, the redefinition of technology boundaries or the pursuit of new routes to market.

Apparently there is no time like the present in which to start. Going on...

We’ve never walked away from a challenge - or an opportunity.

um.... what?

I do not consider the announcement to be the end of the road, not by any stretch of the imagination. I believe this is the first step down a different path, one that takes us and our innovations to an even broader market, one that ensures the ubiquitous role we play in the world around us.

Did I miss something? I know I've been drinking Jonathan's kool-aid a long time, but if Sun ceases being Sun and become a part of Oracle, isn't that the end of the road? Sun badge replaced with Oracle badge... I think thats sorta the end.

Thank you for everything you’ve done over the years, and for everything you will do in the future to carry the business forward.

Ya, to carry their business forward. What the hell?

Lets please separate things a bit. Solaris, Java, MySQL, SPARC, etc, will go on.... Sun will not. His email sort of glosses over that fact with the same old crufty flowery "we rule" statements... except that "we" don't exist anymore, or at least we won't in a couple months.

I think the Oracle deal may very well be transformational for Solaris, Java and SPARC, but Sun Microsystems is something very near and dear to many of us... and now its done. I realize he was trying to avoid a "sorry, we tried, it was time to throw in the towel" mail, but wow... our great and mighty leader is himself in denial. Sad.

In a cloud of sadness and bewilderment, I find comfort in Ecclesiastes, the wisdom of Solomon, approx 3,000 years ago he had the right words:

3:1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

2 a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;

3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

Sun's board has achieved its goal of whoring the company. The odd thing about it is that rather than selling to a hardware business such as IBM or HP or Dell or even Cisco, out of the blue came Oracle to seal the deal. So, if you haven't yet heard the news: "Sun and Oracle today announced a definitive agreement for Oracle to acquire Sun for $9.50 per share in cash. The Sun Board of Directors has unanimously approved the transaction. It is anticipated to close this summer."

There is no way for me to take this positively. Many of you, loyal readers, know that I tend to err on the side of idealism; frequently to my peril. Rather than seeing an acquisition as a way to save Sun, I rather see it as the final failure of Sun's board of directors and the leadership of Jonathan Schwartz.

Jonathan is himself idealistic, which has always drawn me to his banner. I've frequently taken exception to criticism against him... because I believe in what he wanted to do. However, I can no longer avoid the inevitable conclusion that his inability to execute has killed my beloved company.

Frankly, I see this as complete cowardice. Sun needed to make radical changes to its business.. but rather than do so they opted to ride it out and wait for someone else to make the tough choices. While this may be the best choice for shareholders, its tough for those close to the business to take. In years time people will be speaking about Sun the same way we currently talk about DEC. Will the Sun brand die? Maybe not. Will Sun's products be more prominent than ever? Quite possibly.... but it won't be the same company.

So is this the end? No, I don't think so... quite the opposite, I see it as a new beginning. I'm simply angry that Oracle is going to do the work that the Sun Board of Directors failed to do; damn the shareholders (of which I am one).

One of the inevitable consequences of this sort of deal is that sales are going to grind to a halt for a season. For instance, I'm super excited about the new Intel X5500 powered Sun Fire X4275... 12 3.5" drives, Sun SSD, ILOM, Intel Networking... its a killer!

.... but what will become of the Sun X86 line? Do I want to buy a bunch of boxes that may not have a future? I'm not putting my money on that bet.

As for Oracle... this is what scares me. To this very day, Oracle 11g is not available for Solaris/X64! Oracle has completely ignored Solaris/X64 for some time now. Combined with Oracle's promise to put Sun's margins in order, suggests a new life for SPARC. While I think the better future is to push Oracle 11g RAC on Sun X64 systems that may not be in the cards.

What will happen? There is a lot of speculating I can do, but I'm going to wait for details. It's like being a 20 year old kid living away from home and the parents have shown up unexpected, and you know you're in deep shit but not sure what'll happen next. Parties over, thats for damned sure.

Ashlee Vance and Steve Lohr at the New York Times reported that I.B.M. Withdraws $7 Billion Offer for Sun Microsystems: "On Sunday, I.B.M.’s board decided to withdraw the offer." Read the article for (sketchy) details.

Is this good or bad? For those of us who didn't think the acquisition was in the best interest of Sun's products and communities its positive, but regardless the article rightly quotes: “Sun is now sort of damaged goods,” Peter Falvey, the co-founder of Revolution Partners, a technology-focused investment bank

Damaged goods indeed. Whatever Sun says or does, we know it doesn't believe in itself and has, in my mind, simply given up. Even if this isn't the case, Sun's going to spend a lot of time, energy and money convincing customers that its committed. Sun made a big gamble and they blew it.

Will Cisco rocket into the server business by picking up the broken pieces? Who knows. All eyes will no doubt be on JAVA shares to free-fall on the market open Monday morning.

I will say, if Sun has to be acquired, just please please please don't let it be HP. :)

Here is, big post 1,000. I'm fairly proud of that given that the vast bulk of all my blog entries are technical and not just brainless linkdumps. There is still a lot to blog about and I've still written a great many entries that ended with "more to come...", never the less its a good milestone.

Looking back at 2008, we've had a very good a productive year in OpenSolaris land. COMSTAR arrived, Crossbow arrived, ZFS is getting stronger all the time, we got a new iSCSI Target, the first and second release in the 6 month cycle of Indiana went out on schedule, and Solaris 10 is now more or less on par with Nevada. Technically there is a lot to be proud of and excited about.

On the non-technical side we had another OpenSolaris Developers Summit and the first annual OpenSolaris Storage Summit. Ian Murdock gave a keynote at CommunityOne and there was a heavy emphasis on OpenSolaris at JavaOne. We did several good conferences this year, although not as many as in years prior. We had a dominant year at SNIA's Developers Conference, helping solidify Sun's role in the future of storage development.

On the Sun side, the mighty FISHworks released to the world and the response to the resulting offerings has been tremendous thus far and sets a new standard in storage particularly in the realm of the Sun-created buzzword "OpenStorage". Business for Sun is poor but there are several areas of growth and although I think the MySQL acquisition was a massive blunder it may all pan out in the end.

On the OpenSolaris governance side, its been a sad year. Rather than moving forward the OGB decided to rehash old ground and fall right back into the same pitfalls. An all Sun OGB proved to be less effective than a mixed OGB. OpenSolaris governance in general is more closed off and insular than ever, but thats indirectly what Simon Phipps and others were shooting for.

The Silicon Valley OpenSolaris Users Group fell into significant decline over previous years, but tends to be a valley trend as technologies loose their initial buzz and become more established... the Silicon Valley Linux Users Group felt the same kind of declines, although not as sharply.

As we look to 2009, I think the word is "established". OpenSolaris is here, Nevada is strong, we've proven that its not going to disappear. We now need to set the tone for the future by definitively establishing the future of Solaris 11 (or lack of one), upgrade path from Solaris 10 (if there is one beyond HP-UX like Update-forever), and wrapping extension technologies like xVM, Sun Cluster, and others around OpenSolaris. In general, customers are still largely unclear on where this is all ultimately going and what it means to them. If you have big SPARC box like Sun Fire E2900 in production running Sun Cluster, what does the future hold? S10 till you retire it? OpenSolaris makes a lot of sense to new adopting customers, but then a lot of them are running it on non-Sun hardware (Dell, HP, and Supermicro are popular)... how do we monetize them in a compelling way? And how do we continue to ramp Sun support of Nevada? To date most experiences with Sun Support over post-S10 releases are horrible as a lot of Sun's Support organization simply doesn't know it well enough.

So, the pave stones are on the ground, they now need to be shifted into a resting position so we can start walking people across the path. Its time to unify offerings and improve Sun's sales, marketing and support around it.

Here's to 2009!

Today we got a press release no one wanted to see: Sun Microsystems Aligns Business with Global Economic Climate and Amplifies Growth Opportunities Across Open Source Platforms... how much more rosey you can make it sound, I don't know. As a result, the stock traded higher today, by 1% at close, but the stock took a beating in after-hours trading and struggled to stay above $4 in early trading.

So lets break it down, for better or worse...

Many of us have known that Sun is still too large, in terms of employee count. Even with repetitive RIF's (reduction in force), the company keeps making aquisitions and the cuts, as deep and painful as they are, haven't been deep enough. What a horrible thing to say.... but there it is.

Rich Green is gone. Whether he resigned for personal reasons or not, I don't know and don't care. There are a great many of us glad to see him gone, but as for particulars, he hasn't really been an outward facing fellow, so most news about him comes by way of rumor which I don't like to subscribe to.

WIthin Systems Software there are now 3 groups:

1. Application Platform Software, run by EVP Anil Gadre, formerly Chief Marketing Officer. So these guys handle everything on top of the systems software, including the whole Java stack, databases, software integration, and even Sun Ed.
2. Systems Platforms, run by the EVP John Fowler, undoubtedly the most public facing of all Sun's executives, will handle all the software that makes the hardware go, including Solaris, Virtualization including xVM and Virtualbox, management software, etc.
3. Cloud Computing & Developer Platforms, run by SVP Dave Douglas, will handle NetBeans, OpenOffice, and Network.com, trying to put Sun in a position to leverage the Cloud and build new avenues of business for the company.

So we see a stack here. I'm curious as to how much of systems, from a hardware production perspective, will stay with John Fowler and who will be stepping in.

As usual, two big questions are floating in the air: a) when will Sun be acquired, and b) when will Jonathan step down. As to the first, I don't think it will happen. The company is a tough one to deal with, and would invariably involve a lot of slicing and dicing. In this tough economic climate I don't think anyone has the time or money to take on the problems of Sun. As to the latter, I like Jonathan and wish him only the greatest success. I do question many decisions he's made, the MySQL acquisition first and foremost, and I'm not happy with how distracted Sun is by itself. Systems, Systems, Systems... make great systems, sell great systems, provide software that makes them better... systems systems systems! The bottom line is, the Sun Board of Directors will make that call, and clearly they haven't felt it was the right decision.

I want to highlight that point. There is a lot of people after Jonathan's head, but the blame for any missteps is on the Board. They are the final authority and they are signing off on it.

The future is unclear, but its time to streamline. I recommend reading my (Joyent) CEO David Young's perspective: In the Business Cycle of Create, Improve, Destroy: What Sun Needs to Do Now, forward looking given that it was written on Nov 6th.