or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › didn't Apple used to make an Xserve?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

didn't Apple used to make an Xserve? - Page 2

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
You have me really interested in how you came up with this conclusion. Was it by measuring AC power input into the units?

The machine will not create heat on its own, any heat dissipated is the result of the electrical loads inside the case. The only way you will have greater heat production, given equal hardware, is if you have more components generating heat. Now the exhaust air temperature may be higher but that is not heat that is temperature.

This is a very curious issue, if the 1U machines are truely producing that much extra heat it would indicate that some very ineffiecent parts where used in there construction.

Dave

Actually, they (the machines) are not the same. The 1750's were single power supplies and single drives while every 2600 and 2650 had redundant power supplies, multiple drives and a RAID card. Otherwise, the machines had the same CPU's. We also did not measure the power going into the machines as we were only concerned about the heat generated not the power consumption.

Again, my statements towards the beginning of this thread were in relation to the heat generated by a 1U versus a MultipleU.
post #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
You're still wrong! ...

People are attempting to clarify and slightly ammend your description of the physics involved. They are pointing out the difference between heat and temperature. While a smaller box may run hotter. This isn't synonymous with it generating more heat.
post #43 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler
People are attempting to clarify and slightly ammend your description of the physics involved. They are pointing out the difference between heat and temperature. While a smaller box may run hotter. This isn't synonymous with it generating more heat.

I TOTALLY understand it...having an EE degree I was simply pointing out that a 1U Dell Xeon machine does produce more heat then a 2U or 4U Dell Xeon machine with the same CPU's. This is not based on conjecture or guessing or pencil and paper figures...it is based on real world tests...nothing more...nothing less
post #44 of 63
Then how are you measuring that heat? How many BTUs do the 2U and 1U boxes pump out per hour for instance?

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
I TOTALLY understand it...having an EE degree I was simply pointing out that a 1U Dell Xeon machine does produce more heat then a 2U or 4U Dell Xeon machine with the same CPU's. This is not based on conjecture or guessing or pencil and paper figures...it is based on real world tests...nothing more...nothing less
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #45 of 63
I may be showing my ignorance here, but if you are measuring the air output from the exhaust you are not measuring the heat generated by the CPU's but rather the heat transfered to the air that is coming out of the enclosure. If both computers have the same heat sink and same fan then the larger enclosure would still probably have a lower heat at the exhaust vent because there is more room for air in the enclosure that is receiving heat from the heat sinks. To measure the heat generated by the CPU's you need to get a temperature reading from the CPU to be accurate.
post #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Then how are you measuring that heat? How many BTUs do the 2U and 1U boxes pump out per hour for instance?

I wish we really know emphatically the exact number. I was talking about this with one of my guys today that has a similar Physics background to mine and we were wondering the same. Unforunately, Dell's Rack Advisor still has not been updated with the 1750's. We were actually looking to see what the power consumption was on all the machines...

It still baffles us that a Dell 2600 Dual 3.06 with internal RAID with 2 drives, an additional RAID card for an external RAID chassis and redundant power supplies is producing more heat then a Dell 1750 with Dual 3.06's and a single hard drive and single power supply!!!

BTW, the heatsinks are WAY different!
post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by @homenow
I may be showing my ignorance here, but if you are measuring the air output from the exhaust you are not measuring the heat generated by the CPU's but rather the heat transfered to the air that is coming out of the enclosure. If both computers have the same heat sink and same fan then the larger enclosure would still probably have a lower heat at the exhaust vent because there is more room for air in the enclosure that is receiving heat from the heat sinks. To measure the heat generated by the CPU's you need to get a temperature reading from the CPU to be accurate.

The heatsinks are NOT the same. Maybe I can find the time tomorrow to snap some pictures. We were talking about checking the CPU temps on the machines...this is monitored, we just did not have the time to check them.

Also, the 1750's fans SEEM to push more air volume...although they may be moving the same CFM in a much smaller area.
post #48 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
...We also did not measure the power going into the machines as we were only concerned about the heat generated not the power consumption...

I'm confused. I also have an EE degree, but perhaps I don't remember it as well as I thought: I was under the impression that the law of conservation of energy imply that the heat produced by a computer per unit time must be directly proportional to its energy consumption.

So surely measuring the power consumption of the server would be the best, most reliable method of determining its heat output, since even a very noisy server with lots of blinking lights still produces heat as its primary form of energy output.

If you try to measure the temperature of the processor or the air coming out of the vents, then you may miss other places where heat is escaping, such as radiation from the casing.

It doesn't really matter how a server distributes the processor heat, in the end, for a given processor at a given load the exact same amount of heat will be produced and this heat will end up warming the air in the room, regardless of how many heatsinks, fans, casings, etc it passes through first (after all, heatsinks and fans are basically just ways to transfer heat to the air).

It may be that a server with a lot more fans produces more heat because of the fans own motors, which cannot run completely without friction. In which case you may be right that the smaller servers (which typically need more fans) may be running hotter. But then in that case you could find out that quite easily by measuring their power input, as was suggested.

You are correct that temperature is dependent on size, however heat is not. A smaller case will get hotter than a larger case given the same amount of heating. However I presume that it is the temperature of your server room that you are concerned about, not the individual servers themselves. A small server gets hotter because it only has half as much case area to absorb heat. However, that also means it only has half as much area to radiate heat from, which means that it will heat the room exactly as much as a server that is half the temperature, but twice as big.

So if I were you, I'd worry about ventilation, and not how big your server boxes are.

Socrates
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #49 of 63
I may be showing my ignorance here, but if you are measuring the air output from the exhaust you are not measuring the heat generated by the CPU's but rather the heat transfered to the air that is coming out of the enclosure.

Well it's not like the heat just stays in the computer. It has to go somewhere. Probably the best measurement would be putting the comp in a room by itself and measuring the increase in air temperature.
post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by crayz
I may be showing my ignorance here, but if you are measuring the air output from the exhaust you are not measuring the heat generated by the CPU's but rather the heat transfered to the air that is coming out of the enclosure.

Well it's not like the heat just stays in the computer. It has to go somewhere. Probably the best measurement would be putting the comp in a room by itself and measuring the increase in air temperature.

As Socrates so wisely pointed out the larger server has a larger surface area, as well as internal volume to both absorb and radiate the heat through means other than the exhaust vent. The heat is still going into the room, but not directly through the exhaust which I assume is the point that the temperature was being measured.
post #51 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Yeah right...

Since when does Apple make Blades?

shawk is right. Pixar has intense interest in G5 Xserves.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #52 of 63
Heat can be transfered 3 ways.
1. Radiation
2. Convection through air or liquid ( all that air pumped over the heat sinks)
3. Conductance through solid material (like from the CPU to the heat sink)

Basically most parts of the computer is heated up through radiation and conductance spreading the heat from a handful of really hot components and then the airflow will cool of the whole thing.

The simplest way to measure heat is to measure the power comsumption by having a meter on the power cord. A computer basically is a machine with 0% "efficency" 100% end up as heat and (allmost) 0% as "work".

And please use Watts as opposed to such arcane units as BTU
post #53 of 63
We are measuring the actual ROOM temperature...which is what is puzzling. During our spare time we may try and figure out what is going on Cause you know that funny thing about energy...
post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Socrates
So if I were you, I'd worry about ventilation, and not how big your server boxes are.

Socrates

That was all we were concerend about (cooling)...however, the 1750's and the 2600's are the only servers with U320 built-in controllers. The 2650's are still U180. Being DB servers disk IO is the true limiting factor. Now imagine the space 6 2600's take up vs 6 1750's. We also need room to grow this cluster to 32 nodes...size does start to matter.
post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Socrates
I'm confused. I also have an EE degree, but perhaps I don't remember it as well as I thought: I was under the impression that the law of conservation of energy imply that the heat produced by a computer per unit time must be directly proportional to its energy consumption.

Socrates

You are correct. We do not have the tools to measure this however.
post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBoar
And please use Watts as opposed to such arcane units as BTU

Nothing arcane about BTUs at all.

But I wasn't suggesting what unit of measurement to use, I was trying to find out how they were taking the measurement. Comparing the heat output of a lightly used CPU in a 2U box against a 1U box that's heavily loaded with computaionally intensive tasks using the "lick and touch" measurement technique isn't going to tell you much beyond "one's warmer'. But warmer does not mean "produces more heat" which is the point folks were trying to get across.

Measuring BTUs would give you a rough idea of how the CPUs in question compare in terms of actual heat output in this instance, but since the amount of heat generated by a CPU is related to how much electricity it uses which will vary according to computational load it's not too surprising that an under utilized system will actually produce less heat than one that is heavily utilized all other things being equal (which in this case, they're not).
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
You are correct. We do not have the tools to measure this however.

Go watch the dial spin in the electricity meter. Duh.

My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #58 of 63
i don't want to repeat myself but it seems as if i was - and still am - in a good position to win the bet on 90nm chips as well as my prediction for g5 xserves at the end of february

funny that every answer i got in that old thread was refusal

Quote:
Originally posted by Krassy
my thoughts are based on this:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docvie...=psg1MIGR-53431

i think if ibm can put two ppc 1.6GHz-970s in a 1U unit this must be 90nm cpus because of the heat of current 130nm 1.6 GHz chips. however - if ibm can do it, apple also can which means updated G5 xservers at the end of february along with new PowerMac G5s at higher clockspeeds at the same time (end of february). the update of the new g5 revision will be given in a special event in february. another hint at new 90nm PPC 970s can be found here

all based on speculation. but i think it sounds good
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Krassy
i don't want to repeat myself but it seems as if i was - and still am - in a good position to win the bet on 90nm chips as well as my prediction for g5 xserves at the end of february

funny that every answer i got in that old thread was refusal

I agree 8) I know some other tidbits that should come to pass in a couple months and really change the IT department's outlook on G5 servers...
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Go watch the dial spin in the electricity meter. Duh.


The dial moves too fast
post #61 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Krassy
i don't want to repeat myself but it seems as if i was - and still am - in a good position to win the bet on 90nm chips as well as my prediction for g5 xserves at the end of february

funny that every answer i got in that old thread was refusal

Except IBM never said anything about 1U servers, they talked about blades. They also have avaialble in the same form factor dual XEON 2.8GHz units, which I suspect dissipate quite a bit more heat than a pair of 130nm 1.6GHz G5s.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #62 of 63
Thread Starter 
http://macinchat.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s...3&m=2256086515


Quote:
Without getting into the who, where and why...
We can say with certain confidence that Apple will announce the G5 Xserve at MWSF 04. The system will feature all the G5 architectural goodness, but it appears that it will be in a 3U form factor. The 1U simply was not doable with the type of cooling requirements brought on by the PowerPC 970 processor. There is more information coming in, and I will update the site as I get new data.


if Apple doesn't release a 1U unit of some kind i will be livid. anyone i know who is interested in Xserve - needs it to be 1U for cost purposes.

i really hope this is wrong. cause this would be a huge drag . and i don't see a 3U unit selling nearly as well as a 1U.

a 1U unit is an Xserve.
a 3U unit is a tower with a chasis mount.
post #63 of 63
Hi Bluesigns;

I do hope that Apple doesn't abandon the 1U market. It's completely possible to build such a machine with todays chips, but I'm worried that Apple will be concerned about the noise the unit develops. This may lead them to dismiss the form factor, even though that is the hottest part of the market

On the otherhand I would not be completely opposed to 3U iether if they resultant machine Is truely something ot crow about. That is if the delievered a low cost machine with 4 to 6 processors in a 3U case then the equation may change a bit. A lot of things come into play, so it is hard to say if Apple would get the 3U unit right. By right I mean a system that would offer better peformance than three 1U machines working together. The 3U unit of course would have to be delivered at a lower cost than the three 1U units.

I'm trying to keep an open mind with respect to what Apple could release. There is nothing to keep them from releaseing both a 1U and a 3U unit. In fact a good argument may be made that they should do just that. There is also the wild card of the 750VX (or what ever it is called these days), that is a 32 bit implementation. A quite 32 bit machine that could double present performance of the 1U machine would be recieved very well by some markets. A 32 bit machine would be short lived though as the whole market will move to 64 bit rather quickly - possibly faster that Apple and some of the PC manufactures may suspect.

Time will Tell

Dave



Quote:
Originally posted by bluesigns
http://macinchat.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s...3&m=2256086515





if Apple doesn't release a 1U unit of some kind i will be livid. anyone i know who is interested in Xserve - needs it to be 1U for cost purposes.

i really hope this is wrong. cause this would be a huge drag . and i don't see a 3U unit selling nearly as well as a 1U.

a 1U unit is an Xserve.
a 3U unit is a tower with a chasis mount.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › didn't Apple used to make an Xserve?