Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · Oct 31, 2003, 01:48 PM

Rackmountable 1U or 2U chassis (not 3U like others have reported)
Cluster node available right off the bat
Single or dual 1.8 GHz G5, no L3
Dual channel DDR400 standard, DDR400 ECC optional
8 memory slots
Slot-load CD-ROM drive (or possibly DVD-ROM)
Optional slot-load DVD-ROM/CD-RW
SATA drives standard, up to 1 Terabyte (250 GB x 4). SCSI optional
Low end ATI video card, higher end card optional
PCI-X
Firewire 400/800, USB 2, Dual Gigabit Ethernet
Fibrechannel PCI card option
Mellanox dual 10 Gbps host channel adapter card optional

Announced within 3 months. Price starting at $2699.

xylon · Oct 31, 2003, 04:49 PM

Mmmmm, sounds yummy, not that I could ever afford one or that I even need it. Xserves just hold a special place in my heart. I get all warm and fuzzy thinking about them.

I'd, of course, like to see them come with the 90 nm technology but it makes sense that, in order to stay competitive, Apple would push to get any Xserve onto the market. Especially with the publicity generated by VT cluster.

On kind of a side note, I read that U servers were losing popularity in the face of blade servers. Having no idea what the latter of the two meant, I kind of shrugged at the article. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Eug · 06:51 PM

In my understanding, a blade server is a set of of server composed of hot-swappable self-contained parts. They are cheap because they are stripped down servers, and some don't even have a complete housing. Think of them as easily swappable Xserves with some of the parts removed (including half the case sometimes), and shrunk.

Yeah, Apple could do it, but I'm not sure I see the point just yet. They don't have a well-established Xserve market yet and this market doesn't compete directly against blades anyway. Furthermore, Apple is short on enterprise software, and they don't even have ECC-support yet.

I'd say Apple needs to put out a G5 Xserve (with ECC support) and get software support at the same time. Get a few large installations under their belt, and then they can think about blades.

cdhostage · Oct 31, 2003, 07:33 PM

The PM G5 is being pushed hard in bang-for-the-buck; witness the recent cluster supercomputer and smaller cluster projects. An Apple G5 server, whatever they call it, could be marketed to the same people that buy blades for cost efficiency. Then again, I don't know if the G5 is the best chip for use in a serious server (the Power4, which the G5 is a descendant of, has enormous cache in comparision)

Eug · Oct 31, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by cdhostage:
The PM G5 is being pushed hard in bang-for-the-buck; witness the recent cluster supercomputer and smaller cluster projects. An Apple G5 server, whatever they call it, could be marketed to the same people that buy blades for cost efficiency. Then again, I don't know if the G5 is the best chip for use in a serious server (the Power4, which the G5 is a descendant of, has enormous cache in comparision)

The Xserve will cost too much to be used as a blade, and indeed, it isn't meant to be a blade.

And blade servers don't necessarily need POWER4s (although some may be). Often the determining factor is cost. POWER4 CPUs cost a lot.

xylon · Nov 3, 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
In my understanding, a blade server is a set of of server composed of hot-swappable self-contained parts. They are cheap because they are stripped down servers, and some don't even have a complete housing. Think of them as easily swappable Xserves with some of the parts removed (including half the case sometimes), and shrunk.

Yeah, Apple could do it, but I'm not sure I see the point just yet. They don't have a well-established Xserve market yet and this market doesn't compete directly against blades anyway. Furthermore, Apple is short on enterprise software, and they don't even have ECC-support yet.

I'd say Apple needs to put out a G5 Xserve (with ECC support) and get software support at the same time. Get a few large installations under their belt, and then they can think about blades.

Hmm, interesting. I'm still a little in the fog about blade servers, but I'm further along than before. Now maybe I can try to make sense of those google articles... One final question though, it seems the most appealing attribute of a blade server is cost. What's holding it back (ie offsetting the benefits of lower cost)? And what does a typical U server have that a blade server doesn't?

Also, looking at the responses, I suppose I was a little unclear about the article. It was suggesting that blade servers would replace U servers in general (as sort of a market shift) and wasn't directly pointing at Apple or any attempts Apple has been making towards producing blade servers (unbeknowst to me). My assumption with regards to Apple was that there'd be a fundamental market shift towards blade servers (assuming the article's prediction is correct) after which Apple would rush to produce a blade server. Seeing, as was previously stated, that Apple isn't a big player in the server market, it seems more apt to the pull of the market rather than the innovation we've become so used to in the consumer market. Just my thoughts though.

rogerkylin · Nov 4, 2003, 12:37 PM

There are two primary reasons why one would want a blade server. Density and power. Typically the blades are more space-optimized than even 1U nodes. They don't have pci slots, usb ports.... etc. With the reduced hardware, they also consume less power, and produce less heat.

The power requirements are a substantial practical issue when you start pricing the hardware to support a cluster (as we are). Air conditioners, backup batteries, backup generator, incoming power supply.. are all things that one must spend money on, instead of computers.

Finally, blades tend to be _more_ expensive then comparably spec'd 1U nodes because of the space and power optimizations.

Eug Wanker · Nov 10, 2003, 08:54 PM

Rumour alert! Thinksecret is reporting that IBM will soon release G5 PowerPC 970 blades.

The JS20 BladeCenter module will sport dual 1.6 GHz PPC 970 CPUs and will cost $2700 with 256 MB RAM, running Linux, with AIX support to come later.

DVD Plaza · Nov 10, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Rackmountable 1U or 2U chassis (not 3U like others have reported)
Cluster node available right off the bat
Single or dual 1.8 GHz G5, no L3

Interesting, what makes you think the G5 xServe will be a dual 1.8GHz? By the time it arrives the PowerMac would be due to reach 2.5GHz - why wouldn't the xServe be a 2.5GHz as well, or at the very least the old 2GHz?

If they do increase the enclosure to be 2U (which I guess is guaranteed to be the minimum), I wonder if they'll support eight drives instead of four (along with eight dedicated channels)?

Eug · 02:57 PM

IBM eServer BladeCenter JS20 G5 PPC 970 blades announced:

Two 1.6 GHz PowerPC 970 processors with full-speed 512 KB ECC L2 cache
Standard 512MB system memory with ECC support, supporting up to 4GB maximum
Dual Gigabit Ethernet connections with teaming and failover support
Integrated management processor monitors critical components on each blade for remote and local systems-management
ATA-100 IDE controller with economical interface for up to two 40 GB IDE Hard disk drives
IBM Director v4.12
Service processor
Three-year, limited warranty

EDIT: $2699

cenutrio · Nov 12, 2003, 02:59 PM

Would these IBM servers run OS X besides Linux?

Eug · Nov 12, 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by cenutrio:
Would these IBM servers run OS X besides Linux?

Nope. Just Linux and maybe AIX.

thunderous_funker · Nov 12, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by cenutrio:
Would these IBM servers run OS X besides Linux?

Probably can't without Apple ASICS. I could be wrong though.

maxelson · Nov 12, 2003, 03:06 PM

You're not. ROM stuff, dontcha know.

leffo · Nov 12, 2003, 03:19 PM

As they will run Linux there's perhaps a small chance OS X will run under Mac-on-Linux though?

thunderous_funker · Nov 12, 2003, 03:20 PM

I'll readily admit that my exposure to enterprise computing is fairly limited, but isn't the blade server market shockingly small?

With all the added costs to make blade arrays safe, cool and redundant the only reason to use them is when you have drastic space constraints that absolutely demand the most processing power per square foot you can possibly manage.

That usually means TelCo. They are constantly constrained by the limitations of space but have to continually pack more power into relay stations and central offices.

Is there really any other major player in the blade server space?

Considering the power/performance you can get from dirt cheap 1U servers, I have a hard time imagining the need to go with blades. Especially since each 1U server is self contained and independent. Redundancy simply means having another one handy. With blades, if your chasis goes out, you're screwed. Considering that I've had the chasis replaced on a Cisco 6000 series router 3 times in 3 years (the first failure being that it was DOA), I can't imagine moving our web farms to blades.

Anyone shed light on this thinking? Am I missing something? What's the allure of blades besides places where there are drastic space constraints?

Eug · Nov 12, 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by leffo:
As they will run Linux there's perhaps a small chance OS X will run under Mac-on-Linux though?

Good point. I never thought of that. Mac-on-Linux can (sometimes) run on non-Apple PPC hardware. It would be an interesting experiment to get it running on IBM eServers.

thunderous_funker · Nov 12, 2003, 03:27 PM

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about Mac-on-Linux. One of the best logos ever!!!

Anyone running it? Is it keeping up? How's performance? Anyone?

The Godfather · Nov 12, 2003, 04:00 PM

MOL runs Jaguar. Mr Ridh should be working on Panther compatitbility.

leffo · Nov 12, 2003, 04:02 PM

I used to run Jaguar through MOL on my iBook 700MHz a couple of months ago. I was quite surprised as I thought the speed decrease would be a lot more noticeable than it actually was. Completely usable, but of course very RAM hungry. However, after a while I felt that running two unices side-by-side was a bit of an overkill. Anything I could do in Linux could also be done in OS X, so after a while I just ditched my Yellow Dog Linux installation and continued running OS X full time. Still, it's way cool that it can be done though

leffo · Nov 12, 2003, 04:03 PM

Deleted, double post.

Eug · Nov 13, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by xylon:
I'd, of course, like to see them come with the 90 nm technology but it makes sense that, in order to stay competitive, Apple would push to get any Xserve onto the market.

90 nm G5 to be presented at meeting in early 2004.

olePigeon · Nov 13, 2003, 03:40 AM

So, how soon until we see G5 XServes?

jcadam · Nov 13, 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
So, how soon until we see G5 XServes?

Dunno. I do know that a 64 bit processor would be even more beneficial for a server than it is for a desktop machine.

I wouldn't be surprised if a special 64-bit version of OS X Server is released alongside an XServe G5 (even if it takes much longer for a consumer 64-bit OS X to show up).

Eug Wanker · Nov 14, 2003, 09:18 PM

MacCentral article:

"IBM plans to boost the 970's clock speed to 2.4GHz in mid-2004, around the same time that the blades will support the AIX operating system."

One can only hope that 2.4 GHz will be the bottom end (like 1.6 is now).

King_Rat · Nov 14, 2003, 10:47 PM

A blade server is a very small, self contained server like computer (I have seen some that are about the size of my nvidia G-force 3). They are generally crammed into a rack mounted chases and networked together. Basically, the blade servers are used as building blocks for larger multi processor computers. The processors on a blade server generally run at a lower speed so that they are cheaper, more reliable, consume less power and are easier to cool. They give a very good performance per volume, performance per watt, and also have (or are supposed to have) a lower failure rate. However, you pay a lot for all of this. For example, their on board hard drive is often a 2.5" drive; we all know how well the 2.5" drives compare with the 3.5 for $/GB I doubt that they will be any where near as popular as normal rack mount servers. It is only going to be people like telco companies that really need the combination of speed and reliability in a small space that blades offer. However, it would be cool to see a Mac blade, but I don't think that it will happen any time soon. On the other hand, I would guess that a G5 Xserve is coming soon. Perhaps in January, if we are lucky.

Eug · Nov 14, 2003, 11:01 PM

eWeek: Apple's Xserve: Ready for G5 Leap?

It's a good 3 page article about the rumoured G5 Xserve, but I found this part the most interesting:

"At the Xserve's introduction. Oracle Corp. officials said the company would port a version of their database to Mac OS X. It currently offers a release candidate of Oracle 9i for Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar".

Oracle "will support the Mac OS X (Panther) as a major platform for the Oracle Database 10g, which will be available at the end of the year," a spokeswoman from Oracle said in an e-mail."