Apple Xblade...?!?
I would love to see Apple work out their supply problems with IBM, and begin offering a new product, the Xblade...!
Imagine a unit similar to the IBM BladeServers, but different...
No HDDs, everything NetBoots off of a workstation...
No optical drives, no graphics cards, nothing extra...
Just CPUs, lots of RAM, 1000BaseT Ethernet & Fibre Channel on each blade...
Partner the Xblade up with an XRAID, and a (forthcoming) Xstation (or whatever Apple is going to call their 3RU rack-mountable workstation), toss the entire Apple post-production software suite into the mix, add a dash of Maya, and maybe some RenderMan...
Simmer until done!
Viewed through a 30" Apple Cinema Display & an 18" Cintiq LCD tablet display, what more do you need?!?
Oh yeah, I need the Xblade to be 6RU, as oppossed to the IBM offering which is 7RU. Why? Because I want the 3RU Xstation, the 3RU XRAID and the 6RU Xblade to fit into a single 12RU noise-dampened rack...
Would work for me, and would make a hell of a picture for selling Apple as the new Post-Production solution...!
Cheers!
;^p
Imagine a unit similar to the IBM BladeServers, but different...
No HDDs, everything NetBoots off of a workstation...
No optical drives, no graphics cards, nothing extra...
Just CPUs, lots of RAM, 1000BaseT Ethernet & Fibre Channel on each blade...
Partner the Xblade up with an XRAID, and a (forthcoming) Xstation (or whatever Apple is going to call their 3RU rack-mountable workstation), toss the entire Apple post-production software suite into the mix, add a dash of Maya, and maybe some RenderMan...
Simmer until done!
Viewed through a 30" Apple Cinema Display & an 18" Cintiq LCD tablet display, what more do you need?!?
Oh yeah, I need the Xblade to be 6RU, as oppossed to the IBM offering which is 7RU. Why? Because I want the 3RU Xstation, the 3RU XRAID and the 6RU Xblade to fit into a single 12RU noise-dampened rack...
Would work for me, and would make a hell of a picture for selling Apple as the new Post-Production solution...!
Cheers!
;^p
Comments
Originally posted by MacRonin
No HDDs, everything NetBoots off of a workstation...
No optical drives, no graphics cards, nothing extra...
Just CPUs, lots of RAM, 1000BaseT Ethernet & Fibre Channel on each blade...
So...
Basically, this minus the hard drive? It's NetBoot ready.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/
I'd been waiting for ages for apple to come out with a rackmount workstation but when the finally do, digidesign does nothing with it....
I don't really understand why there isn't a studio market for them.
are they that loud? I have to QSs in my studio at mix down,
it's no pickinck, but I've survived.....
Originally posted by Brad
So...
Basically, this minus the hard drive? It's NetBoot ready.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/
Brad stole my reply! you rat.
Originally posted by Brad
So...
Basically, this minus the hard drive? It's NetBoot ready.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/
But I would like to see min. 14 CPUs in 6RU (rather than the 12 CPUs allowed with six 1RU Xserve Cluster units), if not 28 CPUs (quad CPUs per blade).
And my Xblade server would have a built-in Fibre Channel switch and built-in 1000BaseT Ethernet switch...
Work with me here folks! It's Future Hardware, remember...?!?
Originally posted by MacRonin
Work with me here folks! It's Future Hardware, remember...?!?
But not Mushroom Center either?
They would be minimal for IO, just a couple of gig e ports, or FC, and space for 2.5" hd, SO-DIMMs for ram.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
I think they have enough problems heating 2 CPUs right now. ...
I think they don't have problems heating two cpus. Cooling two cpus is an altogether different problem.
Blueflame
Originally posted by MacRonin
But I would like to see min. 14 CPUs in 6RU (rather than the 12 CPUs allowed with six 1RU Xserve Cluster units), if not 28 CPUs (quad CPUs per blade).
And my Xblade server would have a built-in Fibre Channel switch and built-in 1000BaseT Ethernet switch...
Work with me here folks! It's Future Hardware, remember...?!?
Dude, your coming up with this ridiculous # because we stifled your first post with the cluster node info. What kind of BS is that?
I need two more CPU's so bad I can hardly get by with the 12 I have.
Work with me here folks! It's Future Hardware, remember...?!?]
This may be future hardware, but do you really see Apple suddenly offering this configuration to suddenly start to compete with IBM in a direct manner against their blade line-up for no other reason than just to p*ss them off. I doubt it.
I thought it was future hardware for focused discussion and speculation about future Apple hardware. I think the fantasy hardware forum is in the back pages at MOSR. Why don't you give Meader a call, and see what he says about it. He's probably already got the skinny on Apples new budget to take over IBM's Manufacturing facilities, and everything.
Originally posted by MacRonin
But I would like to see min. 14 CPUs in 6RU (rather than the 12 CPUs allowed with six 1RU Xserve Cluster units), if not 28 CPUs (quad CPUs per blade).
And my Xblade server would have a built-in Fibre Channel switch and built-in 1000BaseT Ethernet switch...
Work with me here folks! It's Future Hardware, remember...?!?
What you're describing is barley better than 7 Xserves and two switches, just a little smaller.
Blades are different, they wouldn't need a Fibre or Ethernet switch because they have a common backplane that the blades plug into. Blades usually share all I/O, including networking and storage. The backplane will have a huge bandwidth between the blades and probably perform better than a cluster with an ethernet switch for tightly coupled parallel application. They might have more than one ethernet port, but they're shared, like when you have dual ports on an XServe.
I think Apple might one day come out with a blade. This talk of IBM getting pissed off is nonsense. Apple is doing more than IBM right now to promote the PPC970, they're a large customer and IBM would only be happy to sell more processors. Also IBM is more like a federation of separate companies. Apple would be competing with IBMs server division, not their processor division.
ufo: the reason that XServes aren't popular in studios is that they're loud, don't offer any performance advantage over the PowerMacs while costing more, and they don't fit in most studio racks because they're so long. The Xserve is almost 3 feet long, studio gear is usually much, much shallower. I shallower 2U or 3U Xserve would probably be popular for mobile setups, but if it costs more why not just get a G5? Personally, I think Apple should just make the G5 shorter so it can be mounted sideways in a 19" rack.
Originally posted by onlooker
Dude, your coming up with this ridiculous # because we stifled your first post with the cluster node info. What kind of BS is that?
Dude...
Actually my number was wrong, since the IBM blade server has 14 blades, with 2 CPUs each, for a total of 28 CPUs...
And the number of CPUs with quads per blade would actually be 56...
In 6RU, not 7RU...
What it amounts to is twice the CPU density (one IBM blade server fully loaded, versus 7 Xserve dualies...), but in 6RU...
Because it needs to fit in the 12RU noise reduction deskside rack...
This may be future hardware, but do you really see Apple suddenly offering this configuration to suddenly start to compete with IBM in a direct manner against their blade line-up for no other reason than just to p*ss them off. I doubt it.
I do see Apple offering some type of renderfarm option in the future, and a blade server just makes sense for overall TCO, and the extra CPU density...
A targeted vertical market, the one Apple appears to be aiming directly at...
You know, the new SGI...?!?
I thought it was future hardware for focused discussion and speculation about future Apple hardware. I think the fantasy hardware forum is in the back pages at MOSR. Why don't you give Meader a call, and see what he says about it. He's probably already got the skinny on Apples new budget to take over IBM's Manufacturing facilities, and everything.
Really harsh, seeing as the product I describe is exactly what I would desire for a no-hassles renderfarm, cranking out Shake, Maya, RenderMan, FCP files all day (and night!) long...
One that dosn't require a rack full of gear (Ethernet switch, Fibre Channel switch, control Xserve, cluster Xserves, XRAIDs, UPS); just a 3RU workstation/controller, a 3RU XRAID & a 6RU Xblade...
Apple could sell these beauties already wired up, just connect the power to the UPS, and connect a broadband connection to the workstation if needed...
You know, like the Biotech package they are selling already, just more CPU density...
It may not be your idea of future hardware, but it is mine...
Most call it forward thinking!
Cheers!
Originally posted by spankalee
What you're describing is barley better than 7 Xserves and two switches, just a little smaller.
Blades are different, they wouldn't need a Fibre or Ethernet switch because they have a common backplane that the blades plug into. Blades usually share all I/O, including networking and storage. The backplane will have a huge bandwidth between the blades and probably perform better than a cluster with an ethernet switch for tightly coupled parallel application. They might have more than one ethernet port, but they're shared, like when you have dual ports on an XServe.
Thank you for that correction, the blades share a common backplane which handles the Ethernet & Fibre Channel connections...
So, even less things to connect, just fire it up and start rendering...
But take into account CPU density (and remember, NetBoot, so no HDDs needed), and this IS better than a few switches and 7 Xserves...
Originally posted by MacRonin
Thank you for that correction, the blades share a common backplane which handles the Ethernet & Fibre Channel connections...
So, even less things to connect, just fire it up and start rendering...
But take into account CPU density (and remember, NetBoot, so no HDDs needed), and this IS better than a few switches and 7 Xserves...
Performance wise, for the applications you're talking about, it wouldn't be much better. Rendering is well suited to clusters because each frame can be rendered independently, without the need to share data between nodes. The Xserve is at a really, really nice performance/price/size point for this.
A Blade would be more compact, but probably wouldn't beat out an Xserve on price/performance. I think most places would rather buy a few more Xserves for their render farm, and stick the whole rig in a closet or server room than spend more for a lower performing blade.
Blades tend to be used for application servers with lots of users. I'm not aware of any HPC clusters built using blades. I'm not really sure why, but it probably has to do with heat density; most blades don't run as fast as small servers. IBM's PPC blade runs at 1.6Ghz.
1.6 GHz * 14 / 6U = 3.7 Ghz per U
2.0 GHz * 12 / 6U = 4.0 Ghz per U
So the Xserve beats out the blade in performance density. It's been a while since I checked the prices, but I think it beats the blade in price too.
I'm sure blades will get more prominent as power consumption becomes more and more of a concern. IBM's new supercomputer Blue/Gene(?) uses 400Mhz processors, but packs 1024 of them into a dishwasher sized unit. Blades could become a nice off-the-shelf way of getting higher densities, but again, I'm not quite sure why they're not used more in HPC.
[edit: please note the spelling]
Originally posted by spankalee
Performance wise, for the applications you're talking about, it wouldn't be much better. Rendering is well suited to clusters because each frame can be rendered independently, without the need to share data between nodes. The XServe is at a really, really nice performance/price/size point for this.
A Blade would be more compact, but probably wouldn't beat out an Xserve on price/performance. I think most places would rather buy a few more Xserves for their render farm, and stick the whole rig in a closet or server room than spend more for a lower performing blade.
Blades tend to be used for application servers with lots of users. I'm not aware of any HPC clusters built using blades. I'm not really sure why, but it probably has to do with heat density; most blades don't run as fast as small servers. IBM's PPC blade runs at 1.6Ghz.
1.6 GHz * 14 / 6U = 3.7 Ghz per U
2.0 GHz * 12 / 6U = 4.0 Ghz per U
So the Xserve beats out the blade in performance density. It's been a while since I checked the prices, but I think it beats the blade in price too.
I'm sure blades will get more prominent as power consumption becomes more and more of a concern. IBM's new supercomputer Blue/Gene(?) uses 400Mhz processors, but packs 1024 of them into a dishwasher sized unit. Blades could become a nice off-the-shelf way of getting higher densities, but again, I'm not quite sure why they're not used more in HPC.
I corrected myself earlier...
The proper number of CPUs from a 14 blade unit would be 28, more if Apple could get quad CPUs on a blade...
And I beleive Pixar has leased a bunch of IBM Xeon blade servers for their latest renderfarm incarnation...
I just want my 3RU quad CPU workstation, with an attached XRAID & Xblade... Nice and neat...
Originally posted by MacRonin
I corrected myself earlier...
The proper number of CPUs from a 14 blade unit would be 28, more if Apple could get quad CPUs on a blade...
And I beleive Pixar has leased a bunch of IBM Xeon blade servers for their latest renderfarm incarnation...
I just want my 3RU quad CPU workstation, with an attached XRAID & Xblade... Nice and neat...
That's right, so that brings the Ghz / U to 7.2. Pretty nice. Xserve still wins on price/performance... anyway.
I agree that Apple should come out with a blade, but they'll only do it if it makes economic sense. They already sell so few Xserves that cutting into those sales and increasing R&D costs would be crazy. I would be sweet if Apple could work out a deal with IBM to badge and resell the BladeCenter/JS20. They'd probably have to make a hardware tweak or two so you couldn't then just install OS X on the IBMs. The problem is that their margin would be lower since they're reselling and it would cut into Xserve sales.
Realistically, while you want a blade next to your desk, you're a rare beast. Most blades will end up in the server room, and since the Xserve is more cost efficient while being less space efficient, I think most design houses would be ok with that.
The key is getting enterprise acceptance with the Xserve, Xserve RAID, and Xsan. Once their volume goes up Apple can add to the product line. Until then, more products with low sales numbers will only hurt Apples profits.
One thing I would keep my eye on is XPostFacto. They are getting OS X running on a lot of unsupported processors and platforms. They're all Macs now but who knows, maybe they'll find a way to support something like the JS20. Until then, why don't you buy this? Once you include the UPS and the rack, it's cheaper and quite a bit faster than a similarly equipped BladeCenter.
[edit: please note the spelling]
Originally posted by spankalee
That's right, so that brings the Ghz / U to 7.2. Pretty nice. Xserve still wins on price/performance... anyway.
I agree that Apple should come out with a blade, but they'll only do it if it makes economic sense. They already sell so few Xserves that cutting into those sales and increasing R&D costs would be crazy. I would be sweet if Apple could work out a deal with IBM to badge and resell the BladeCenter/JS20. They'd probably have to make a hardware tweak or two so you couldn't then just install OS X on the IBMs. The problem is that their margin would be lower since they're reselling and it would cut into Xserve sales.
Realistically, while you want a blade next to your desk, you're a rare beast. Most blades will end up in the server room, and since the Xserve is more cost efficient while being less space efficient, I think most design houses would be ok with that.
The key is getting enterprise acceptance with the Xserve, Xserve RAID, and Xsan. Once their volume goes up Apple can add to the product line. Until then, more products with low sales numbers will only hurt Apples profits.
One thing I would keep my eye on is XPostFacto. They are getting OS X running on a lot of unsupported processors and platforms. They're all Macs now but who knows, maybe they'll find a way to support something like the JS20. Until then, why don't you buy this? Once you include the UPS and the rack, it's cheaper and quite a bit faster than a similarly equipped BladeCenter.
That exact Apple product (more like solution; it is a collection of Apple & third-party products) is what made me think more of a deskside post-production box...
Kinda like having your own personal Onyx deskside, but better...!
Someday...!
[edit: note the spelling]
[edit by Amorph: note the spelling