As for the people who wanted Xserves as desktops: I know people who would be keenly interested in a rack-mountable Mac as a workstation. Audio types usually have a rack right in front of them, not stuffed in a data center or a closet. It's already a cottage industry, in fact. The Xserve is not the right machine for this niche, but it did whet some appetites.
I suspect that anyone who's got the cash to throw around to use an Xserve RAID as an MP3 server is going to have a few spare pennies for DVD-Rs... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That's pretty much what the OCF bought...a 12 disk array of 18 GB HDDs 2 years ago cost us $10000.
Our Sun A1000 pretty much only works with Sun hardware though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Sun array was probably SCSI based too. On Apple's XRaid page they compare their array's storage density per 3U to other's. Only misleading thing is that a lot of the other arrays are SCSI based, not ATA.
When Jobs announced the XServe I remember hearing him say, "ATA is just as good as SCSI", or something to that extent. Well, it's not
When Jobs announced the XServe I remember hearing him say, "ATA is just as good as SCSI", or something to that extent. Well, it's not </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's worse?
Remeber that each disk has its own ATA 100 controller which todays disks can even saturate.
The only advantages I see on the SCSI side is that the drives run at 10,000 instead of 7,200 rpm, that they usually come with a longer waranty and that 320-SCSI is faster per channel.
When Jobs announced the XServe I remember hearing him say, "ATA is just as good as SCSI", or something to that extent. Well, it's not </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the Xserve RAID does give you a 400MB/sec. throughput - that's more than a lot of SCSI based RAID systems in the same price range (if you can actually find a $11,000 2.5TB SCSI based RAID).
And just in the nick of time. We were looking at spending $120,000 on a Sun solution for 1.5TB and now we can save $70-80K. I am allowing $20K for the LTO2 (200GB native) tape library for a yet to be annouced supplier.
MS advanced server software, and 100 seat licenses (NO hardware):
$6993
Apple Xserve, dual 1.33, 2 GB ddr RAM, 2 180 GB drives, Apple spare parts kit ($1000+), 3-year free software upgrades ($995), Mac OS X Server plus UNLIMITED seats:
$7150
For almost the same price as Microsoft's SOFTWARE, you can get the Apple hardware and Software, and get email serving, WebObjects deployment, file service for multiple platforms, QT server, and more.
The price isn't too bad on this system. However, just a few comments.
ATA vs SCSI - In a HIGH load database example most people will run 15,000 rpm drives in a 0+1 RAID setup. The overhead is in the disk seek time when under high loads.
CACHE SIZE - Is very small when compared to other Fibre setups. 512 is an upgrade...I'm used to seeing 2Gb or 4Gb as an upgrade with 1Gb standard.
I/O's/SEC - This is more important than the 200Mb/s
PRICE - Not bad. A typical Dell setup with a switch would start at around $25,000.00 (8 drive setup 0+1 mirrored)
Xserve - My biggest concern would be the memory limitations on the Xserve. 2Gb might seem like enough but we are running a minimum of 2Gb on our Dell 1650 web cluster servers. On our higher end machines (Dell 2650's and up) we are running upwards of 6Gb and we are considering going to a 6650 with 16Gb RAM for our primary DB server.
<strong>I'm no IT pro so I don't know much about server/storage costs and setups. Anyone with knowledge wanna compare this to PC-side offerings? Wouldn't mind pointing this out to the IT guys at work (who are looking into new hardware) if it's in the ballpark. Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey...didn't know you posted here. I post as Spart/Dordogne over at the Cantrip boards, though admittedly not much. You'll find my real name under Cantrip's about window for icon design.
Well the Xserve RAID does give you a 400MB/sec. throughput - that's more than a lot of SCSI based RAID systems in the same price range (if you can actually find a $11,000 2.5TB SCSI based RAID).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but it isn't just about throughput. ATA doesn't perform command queuing like SCSI does. SCSI devices have much more optimized seek patterns, rescheduling commands in an effort to minimize seek times, and, in turn, maximize throughput. You probably won't notice under normal desktop conditions, but put a SCSI array and an ATA array in a heavy load environment and you notice the differences immediately.
Furthermore, there is a good reason why you pay more for SCSI drives and why they come with longer warranties. SCSI drives are designed for efficiency an dependability. They can usually sustain higher temperatures than ATA drives and tend to stay mechanically functional far longer.
SCSI will continue to have the upper hand on ATA in regards to performance and reliability.
Yeah, but it isn't just about throughput. ATA doesn't perform command queuing like SCSI does.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
With the XServe RAID though, depending on the implementation, the controller should have the same benefits. If I understand it right, the OS talks SCSI over Fibre to the drives. The Fibre/ATA bridge then is taking all of that and switching it to the appropriate drive, translating to/from ATA along the way. So you do get most of the benefits of SCSI with ATA drives. Since each drive is a master on it's own ATA/100 controller there's no bus contention between drives but I think there would be a bottleneck when issueing multiple commands to the same drive (traditional non-multitasking nature of ATA).
It's clever, but I would love to see how it performs when serving a large oracle database or even a very active fileserver.
I don't have a problem with ATA drives but the ATA protocol itself is so braindead. I've always wondered how much a smarter controller would make since 3ware came out with their ATA RAID cards. I would love to have of <a href="http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata.asp"; target="_blank">these</a> in my PowerMac. Unfortunately, it won't happen from 3ware because of native x86 code in the card's BIOS and they're not interested in Apple.
Comments
<strong>Um.. the raid doesn't have a cd drive...
But I am still more proud of Apple then ever. Way to go big Steve. We love you.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Not Unlike Myself ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why on Earth would a RAID need a CD drive?
<strong>
Why on Earth would a RAID need a CD drive?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, come on! You pop a CD in, push the burn button... it's the ultimate MP3 jukebox! 2.4TB of music!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
As for the people who wanted Xserves as desktops: I know people who would be keenly interested in a rack-mountable Mac as a workstation. Audio types usually have a rack right in front of them, not stuffed in a data center or a closet. It's already a cottage industry, in fact. The Xserve is not the right machine for this niche, but it did whet some appetites.
<strong>cd for backup. (I'd want a dvd-ram drive...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even with a SuperDrive it would require 532 DVD-R discs to make a full backup.
<strong>
<a href="http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=22455&parentId=67713"; target="_blank">http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=22455&parentId=67713</a>;
That's pretty much what the OCF bought...a 12 disk array of 18 GB HDDs 2 years ago cost us $10000.
Our Sun A1000 pretty much only works with Sun hardware though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Sun array was probably SCSI based too. On Apple's XRaid page they compare their array's storage density per 3U to other's. Only misleading thing is that a lot of the other arrays are SCSI based, not ATA.
When Jobs announced the XServe I remember hearing him say, "ATA is just as good as SCSI", or something to that extent. Well, it's not
<strong>
When Jobs announced the XServe I remember hearing him say, "ATA is just as good as SCSI", or something to that extent. Well, it's not
What's worse?
Remeber that each disk has its own ATA 100 controller which todays disks can even saturate.
The only advantages I see on the SCSI side is that the drives run at 10,000 instead of 7,200 rpm, that they usually come with a longer waranty and that 320-SCSI is faster per channel.
<strong>
When Jobs announced the XServe I remember hearing him say, "ATA is just as good as SCSI", or something to that extent. Well, it's not
Well the Xserve RAID does give you a 400MB/sec. throughput - that's more than a lot of SCSI based RAID systems in the same price range (if you can actually find a $11,000 2.5TB SCSI based RAID).
This looks awesome.
Dobby
MS advanced server software, and 100 seat licenses (NO hardware):
$6993
Apple Xserve, dual 1.33, 2 GB ddr RAM, 2 180 GB drives, Apple spare parts kit ($1000+), 3-year free software upgrades ($995), Mac OS X Server plus UNLIMITED seats:
$7150
For almost the same price as Microsoft's SOFTWARE, you can get the Apple hardware and Software, and get email serving, WebObjects deployment, file service for multiple platforms, QT server, and more.
A- fricking - mazing.
m2
ATA vs SCSI - In a HIGH load database example most people will run 15,000 rpm drives in a 0+1 RAID setup. The overhead is in the disk seek time when under high loads.
CACHE SIZE - Is very small when compared to other Fibre setups. 512 is an upgrade...I'm used to seeing 2Gb or 4Gb as an upgrade with 1Gb standard.
I/O's/SEC - This is more important than the 200Mb/s
PRICE - Not bad. A typical Dell setup with a switch would start at around $25,000.00 (8 drive setup 0+1 mirrored)
Xserve - My biggest concern would be the memory limitations on the Xserve. 2Gb might seem like enough but we are running a minimum of 2Gb on our Dell 1650 web cluster servers. On our higher end machines (Dell 2650's and up) we are running upwards of 6Gb and we are considering going to a 6650 with 16Gb RAM for our primary DB server.
All-in-all a very good start.
Maybe next week.
<strong>I'm no IT pro so I don't know much about server/storage costs and setups. Anyone with knowledge wanna compare this to PC-side offerings? Wouldn't mind pointing this out to the IT guys at work (who are looking into new hardware) if it's in the ballpark. Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey...didn't know you posted here. I post as Spart/Dordogne over at the Cantrip boards, though admittedly not much.
<strong>
Well the Xserve RAID does give you a 400MB/sec. throughput - that's more than a lot of SCSI based RAID systems in the same price range (if you can actually find a $11,000 2.5TB SCSI based RAID).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but it isn't just about throughput. ATA doesn't perform command queuing like SCSI does. SCSI devices have much more optimized seek patterns, rescheduling commands in an effort to minimize seek times, and, in turn, maximize throughput. You probably won't notice under normal desktop conditions, but put a SCSI array and an ATA array in a heavy load environment and you notice the differences immediately.
Furthermore, there is a good reason why you pay more for SCSI drives and why they come with longer warranties. SCSI drives are designed for efficiency an dependability. They can usually sustain higher temperatures than ATA drives and tend to stay mechanically functional far longer.
SCSI will continue to have the upper hand on ATA in regards to performance and reliability.
<a href="http://www.westerndigital.com/company/releases/PressRelease.asp?release={DB097012-1643-4CF1-B7F7-7573035C067C}" target="_blank">http://www.westerndigital.com/company/releases/PressRelease.asp?release={DB097012-1643-4CF1-B7F7-7573035C067C}</a>
It looks like the gap between SCSI and ATA is shrinking all the time.
I wonder what HDDs Apple is using.
[ 02-11-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>10K RPM Serial ATA drives are on the way...</strong><hr></blockquote>
With a 5-year warranty to boot, just like most SCSI drives...Still, at $150+ for 37 GB, I don't think I'll be buying one any time soon.
<strong>
Yeah, but it isn't just about throughput. ATA doesn't perform command queuing like SCSI does.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
With the XServe RAID though, depending on the implementation, the controller should have the same benefits. If I understand it right, the OS talks SCSI over Fibre to the drives. The Fibre/ATA bridge then is taking all of that and switching it to the appropriate drive, translating to/from ATA along the way. So you do get most of the benefits of SCSI with ATA drives. Since each drive is a master on it's own ATA/100 controller there's no bus contention between drives but I think there would be a bottleneck when issueing multiple commands to the same drive (traditional non-multitasking nature of ATA).
It's clever, but I would love to see how it performs when serving a large oracle database or even a very active fileserver.
I don't have a problem with ATA drives but the ATA protocol itself is so braindead. I've always wondered how much a smarter controller would make since 3ware came out with their ATA RAID cards. I would love to have of <a href="http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata.asp"; target="_blank">these</a> in my PowerMac. Unfortunately, it won't happen from 3ware because of native x86 code in the card's BIOS and they're not interested in Apple.
[ 02-11-2003: Message edited by: hardcore ]</p>