A 3U XServe would make a great deal of sense if it is half the length of the 1U G4 unit. It would in fact be the fabled XStation, able to fit into normal music and video racks and not those insane telecom racks
Well, it has been mention that 4 zones and 9 fans keeps it quiet and in a server that isn't completely neccesary. Also, I took note of the Cluster XServes. Their entire front panel save the drive bays is a cheese grater. It should be possible to fit at least one of those things in there because there is far less air flow constraints than a standard XServe. And putting out G5 Cluster XServes, would do a lot I think.
So with that out of the way, what's the thought on TS' description of the G5 Xserve? Is 3U reasonably? Not gonna happen? Nick is offering very little in the way of details, so it could be a red herring.
I can't understand why people assume that two G5s can't fit inside the same 1U box as the current Xserve, just because the Power Mac G5 has huge heat sinks.
The Power Mac has huge heat sinks so that the cooling won't make that much noice. Noice isn't an issue when constructing rack servers. Just smack on as many leaf blower fans at you need, who cares? The 970 processors doesn't produce that much more heat than the 7455 did before.
I can't understand why people assume that two G5s can't fit inside the same 1U box as the current Xserve, just because the Power Mac G5 has huge heat sinks.
The Power Mac has huge heat sinks so that the cooling won't make that much noice. Noice isn't an issue when constructing rack servers. Just smack on as many leaf blower fans at you need, who cares? The 970 processors doesn't produce that much more heat than the 7455 did before.
Good point, i was on the way to post this my self.
Apple could also use the new PPC 970 fabbed upon 90 nm process. Apple sell very few Xserve : it won't be a problem if the chip supply of 90 nm G5 is low, it will be still sufficiant for this product.
Well I'm an individual and I've seriously considered one of the G4 Xserves. Yes they are slightly more expensive but they do have an interesting feature set. With the advent of the G5 the issues has become a bit more confused, due to the raw HP that the G5 has.
The current XServes are the next best thing to a pizza box mac that one can buy. Shrink the package a bit and throw in a 970 and you have a pretty wonderful machine. The compacted size make them useful for both permanent installations where space is an issue and for transportation.
I'm actually surprised that Apple doesn't sell more of the boxes it currently makes. My question is why don't more people consider the XServes?
I think once the 970 goes to a .09 process, we could see a 1U PPC970-based xServe. If not, I think a 2U is fine. As long as it doesn't have a 3.0GHz proc.
I can't understand why people assume that two G5s can't fit inside the same 1U box as the current Xserve, just because the Power Mac G5 has huge heat sinks.
It has less to do with some notion of huge heat sinks and more to do with the fact that the 970 draws anywhere from two to almost four times the power of a 7447 at the same die size. That's a cooling problem, and a 1U rack unit is hard to cool.
Now, it's possible that TS is dead wrong, and Apple will surprise us all with a 1U G5 Xserve. But if it does ship it'll be an engineering marvel.
It has less to do with some notion of huge heat sinks and more to do with the fact that the 970 draws anywhere from two to almost four times the power of a 7447 at the same die size. That's a cooling problem, and a 1U rack unit is hard to cool.
Apple won't put 7447s in an Xserve. In a server the L3 cache most certainly will make a difference so they'd use 7457 if they'd use G4s at all.
In the current offerings they aren't using 7457, they are using two 7455 with 2 MB L3 cache each. A 7455@1 GHz can draw up to 35 W and that's not incluing the 2 MB L2 cache. I don't know what a 1.33 GHz 7455 will draw, certainly not less. Since a G5@ 1.8 GHz draws 42 W and don't use any L3 cache, the heat dissipation from the processors in the current Xserve (they don't have any problems cooling that) won't be much different from a proposed Xserve G5.
It would be interessting if Apple did make a 4-way Xserve using 7447 (they certainly could) but that's a completely different discussion, and I still don't think it would beat a 2-way Xserve G5.
Apple won't put 7447s in an Xserve. In a server the L3 cache most certainly will make a difference so they'd use 7457 if they'd use G4s at all.
In the current offerings they aren't using 7457, they are using two 7455 with 2 MB L3 cache each.
I used the 7447 as a basis of comparison because it's exactly the same size as a 970.
The '57 is hotter, but it's also larger, and the L3 is also separate. That extra size makes them easier to cool. Heat density is a bigger problem here than overall temperature.
Quote:
A 7455@1 GHz can draw up to 35 W and that's not incluing the 2 MB L2 cache. I don't know what a 1.33 GHz 7455 will draw, certainly not less. Since a G5@ 1.8 GHz draws 42 W and don't use any L3 cache, the heat dissipation from the processors in the current Xserve (they don't have any problems cooling that) won't be much different from a proposed Xserve G5.
First of all, the high end 7455s use a different process. I'm not sure if the 1.33GHz G4 is one of those G4s, but if so it will be more economical than its clockspeed suggests.
Second of all, you're comparing peak wattage to average wattage, which is invalid. Average to average, the 1.8GHz G5 is almost double the G4.
Lastly, you're forgetting that with the G5, everything else gets hotter. The companion chip in the G5 is fabbed on the same process the G5 itself is, and it has to run at high speed to keep up. So does everything else on the board. So it's a red herring to only concentrate on CPU power.
Quote:
It would be interessting if Apple did make a 4-way Xserve using 7447 (they certainly could) but that's a completely different discussion, and I still don't think it would beat a 2-way Xserve G5.
I don't think we'll see a 7447 in an Xserve, let alone a 4-way. But whether the G5 Xserve is better will depend on the application (obviously, for any 64-bit work, there won't be a contest), and its size. I think you're underestimating the difficulty of getting a G5 in a rackmount.
I used the 7447 as a basis of comparison because it's exactly the same size as a 970.
I can't see the relevence in bringin the 7447 into the equation. All comparisons should be made to a know quantity, and that is the 7455@1.33 that's in the Xserves right now. If Apple can make such a configuration work then a similar one should also work.
The 7447 you compared is can't possibly be as large as the 970 since the 970 is made up of approximately 60% more transistors (33 million to 52 million). You just said that a larger chip is easier to cool, so even if it runs hotter it might still be easier to manage, according to you own words.
According to this page @ Motorola a 7455 can consume 35 W typical and peak at 50 W, and that's at 1 GHz! If two of those at 1.33 GHz sits in Xserves right now, there can't be too much trouble putting two 970 in there. I can't believe that the Xserve 1U design is already pressed to the limit already. They might have to redesign the front and/or rear just to open up some ventilation, but that's not an impossible obsticle to overcome, and certainly not an obsticle that demands a 3U case.
We have a coulpe of 2x1.33 Xserves stacked in a rack and they are running at 100% almost 24/7.. they haven't come anyway near any warning due to heat. And, they might do som clever redesign in the Xserve G5 with climate zones just like in the Power Mac G5 to better handle the heat issue. As it is now, the Xserves really have no air intake and that seems kind of stupid.
I can't see the relevence in bringin the 7447 into the equation. All comparisons should be made to a know quantity, and that is the 7455@1.33 that's in the Xserves right now. If Apple can make such a configuration work then a similar one should also work.
I was making a point about heat density, in which case the only relevant parameters are wattage and surface area.
Quote:
The 7447 you compared is can't possibly be as large as the 970 since the 970 is made up of approximately 60% more transistors (33 million to 52 million). You just said that a larger chip is easier to cool, so even if it runs hotter it might still be easier to manage, according to you own words.
Go check for yourself. They're exactly the same size.
The 7447 isn't a very space efficient design. That's one reason why it's able to run cool.
Quote:
According to this page @ Motorola a 7455 can consume 35 W typical and peak at 50 W, and that's at 1 GHz! If two of those at 1.33 GHz sits in Xserves right now, there can't be too much trouble putting two 970 in there.
Considering that 970s can chew over 70W, I'll leave it to Apple to decide that. Also, you're still ignoring the heat output of the rest of the motherboard. Apple doesn't have that luxury.
Quote:
We have a coulpe of 2x1.33 Xserves stacked in a rack and they are running at 100% almost 24/7.. they haven't come anyway near any warning due to heat.
They had damn well better not. If Apple rolls out a G5 Xserve, you can bet that they'll run with the same margin of safety, at the very least.
"One big change for Panther Server will be its support for the G5. Mac OS X Jaguar Server does not support the G5 and Goguen confirmed that Apple would not upgrade Jaguar Server to support the G5 in the future.
Currently, Apple's rackmount server, the Xserve, is still running a G4 processor, but organizations could take advantage of the G5 optimizations in Panther Server if they had a cluster or similar setup. Of course, Apple will upgrade the Xserve with the G5 at some point in the future, but no timeframe has been set.
For the time being, Apple will ship the Xserve with Jaguar Server and Panther Server for those organizations that need a bit more time before they upgrade.
"This reflects the need of some organizations that have standardized on Jaguar Server and may not upgrade to Panther Server as their standard deployment for a few months," said Goguen."
That tells me no G5 X-serve or whatever anytime soon.
As for pointing towards Apple's over-engineered G5 case, you can run the highest speed Athlon 64s/Pentium 4s/Xeons with just a single heatsink and fan unit attached to it. Apple probably intended to use the G5 case for a year or two after launch, so it's a very forward looking design.
It has less to do with some notion of huge heat sinks and more to do with the fact that the 970 draws anywhere from two to almost four times the power of a 7447 at the same die size. That's a cooling problem, and a 1U rack unit is hard to cool.
Now, it's possible that TS is dead wrong, and Apple will surprise us all with a 1U G5 Xserve. But if it does ship it'll be an engineering marvel.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see why. My Xserve (1st gen) sits directly above a dual Xeon Dell 1U server. Granted, it doesn't have the storage options that my Xserve does, but Apple could swap out quad 120GB drive bays for dual 300GB bays and open up a hell of a lot of airflow space. The G5 most certainly does not need the cooling that the Xeon does.
The heat coming out the back of the Dell 1U is very noticable, where the Xserve you can feel the airflow, but no heat. I think Apple has options here to keep it in a 1U form factor.
As I recall the G5 AKA IBM 970 was made by IBM with the expressed intent to have it in 1x blade servers running Linux.
So if they can have those CPUs and other components in blade servers so should Apple. With Apple using IDE drivers (or serial ATA) instead of the classical SCSI they are even saving some heat output...
I am sure Apple could make those blade servers today but with the small market share they have they are smarter if they combine the intoduction of the blade servers with some nice apps (Pixar)
Or it could be that IBM want to get their blades out before Apple
Comments
A 2U Xserve would be okay, but not great, unless it had 4 processors in it.
I would prefer a 1U with 4 processors.
I do not expect such a thing is even possible right now.
I do expect that liquid cooling will help out in this regard.
I also expect it'd mean sacrificing 2 of the HD slots, which would be okay with me, at least in some configurations.
For serving websites (what I want a G5 Xserve for), more procs and more ram are king.
anything other than a 1U screws up the cost efectiveness of colo housing the server for small businesses.
anything other than a G5 in an Xserve and everyone will feel totally jipped.
maybe there is a 2U or a 3U on tap for LANs, render farms and or Xstations ...
but there BETTER be a 1U on tap.
that's all i'm sayin'.
Originally posted by Amorph
So with that out of the way, what's the thought on TS' description of the G5 Xserve? Is 3U reasonably? Not gonna happen? Nick is offering very little in the way of details, so it could be a red herring.
I can't understand why people assume that two G5s can't fit inside the same 1U box as the current Xserve, just because the Power Mac G5 has huge heat sinks.
The Power Mac has huge heat sinks so that the cooling won't make that much noice. Noice isn't an issue when constructing rack servers. Just smack on as many leaf blower fans at you need, who cares? The 970 processors doesn't produce that much more heat than the 7455 did before.
Originally posted by Henriok
I can't understand why people assume that two G5s can't fit inside the same 1U box as the current Xserve, just because the Power Mac G5 has huge heat sinks.
The Power Mac has huge heat sinks so that the cooling won't make that much noice. Noice isn't an issue when constructing rack servers. Just smack on as many leaf blower fans at you need, who cares? The 970 processors doesn't produce that much more heat than the 7455 did before.
Good point, i was on the way to post this my self.
Apple could also use the new PPC 970 fabbed upon 90 nm process. Apple sell very few Xserve : it won't be a problem if the chip supply of 90 nm G5 is low, it will be still sufficiant for this product.
Originally posted by wizard69
Well I'm an individual and I've seriously considered one of the G4 Xserves. Yes they are slightly more expensive but they do have an interesting feature set. With the advent of the G5 the issues has become a bit more confused, due to the raw HP that the G5 has.
The current XServes are the next best thing to a pizza box mac that one can buy. Shrink the package a bit and throw in a 970 and you have a pretty wonderful machine. The compacted size make them useful for both permanent installations where space is an issue and for transportation.
I'm actually surprised that Apple doesn't sell more of the boxes it currently makes. My question is why don't more people consider the XServes?
Dave
One word: Noise.
It makes the MDD seem like a Cube.
It is as loud as an air conditioner.
It is very unpleasesant to be around for any length of time.
Originally posted by Henriok
I can't understand why people assume that two G5s can't fit inside the same 1U box as the current Xserve, just because the Power Mac G5 has huge heat sinks.
It has less to do with some notion of huge heat sinks and more to do with the fact that the 970 draws anywhere from two to almost four times the power of a 7447 at the same die size. That's a cooling problem, and a 1U rack unit is hard to cool.
Now, it's possible that TS is dead wrong, and Apple will surprise us all with a 1U G5 Xserve. But if it does ship it'll be an engineering marvel.
Originally posted by Amorph
It has less to do with some notion of huge heat sinks and more to do with the fact that the 970 draws anywhere from two to almost four times the power of a 7447 at the same die size. That's a cooling problem, and a 1U rack unit is hard to cool.
Apple won't put 7447s in an Xserve. In a server the L3 cache most certainly will make a difference so they'd use 7457 if they'd use G4s at all.
In the current offerings they aren't using 7457, they are using two 7455 with 2 MB L3 cache each. A 7455@1 GHz can draw up to 35 W and that's not incluing the 2 MB L2 cache. I don't know what a 1.33 GHz 7455 will draw, certainly not less. Since a G5@ 1.8 GHz draws 42 W and don't use any L3 cache, the heat dissipation from the processors in the current Xserve (they don't have any problems cooling that) won't be much different from a proposed Xserve G5.
It would be interessting if Apple did make a 4-way Xserve using 7447 (they certainly could) but that's a completely different discussion, and I still don't think it would beat a 2-way Xserve G5.
Originally posted by Henriok
Apple won't put 7447s in an Xserve. In a server the L3 cache most certainly will make a difference so they'd use 7457 if they'd use G4s at all.
In the current offerings they aren't using 7457, they are using two 7455 with 2 MB L3 cache each.
I used the 7447 as a basis of comparison because it's exactly the same size as a 970.
The '57 is hotter, but it's also larger, and the L3 is also separate. That extra size makes them easier to cool. Heat density is a bigger problem here than overall temperature.
A 7455@1 GHz can draw up to 35 W and that's not incluing the 2 MB L2 cache. I don't know what a 1.33 GHz 7455 will draw, certainly not less. Since a G5@ 1.8 GHz draws 42 W and don't use any L3 cache, the heat dissipation from the processors in the current Xserve (they don't have any problems cooling that) won't be much different from a proposed Xserve G5.
First of all, the high end 7455s use a different process. I'm not sure if the 1.33GHz G4 is one of those G4s, but if so it will be more economical than its clockspeed suggests.
Second of all, you're comparing peak wattage to average wattage, which is invalid. Average to average, the 1.8GHz G5 is almost double the G4.
Lastly, you're forgetting that with the G5, everything else gets hotter. The companion chip in the G5 is fabbed on the same process the G5 itself is, and it has to run at high speed to keep up. So does everything else on the board. So it's a red herring to only concentrate on CPU power.
It would be interessting if Apple did make a 4-way Xserve using 7447 (they certainly could) but that's a completely different discussion, and I still don't think it would beat a 2-way Xserve G5.
I don't think we'll see a 7447 in an Xserve, let alone a 4-way. But whether the G5 Xserve is better will depend on the application (obviously, for any 64-bit work, there won't be a contest), and its size. I think you're underestimating the difficulty of getting a G5 in a rackmount.
Originally posted by Amorph
I used the 7447 as a basis of comparison because it's exactly the same size as a 970.
I can't see the relevence in bringin the 7447 into the equation. All comparisons should be made to a know quantity, and that is the 7455@1.33 that's in the Xserves right now. If Apple can make such a configuration work then a similar one should also work.
The 7447 you compared is can't possibly be as large as the 970 since the 970 is made up of approximately 60% more transistors (33 million to 52 million). You just said that a larger chip is easier to cool, so even if it runs hotter it might still be easier to manage, according to you own words.
According to this page @ Motorola a 7455 can consume 35 W typical and peak at 50 W, and that's at 1 GHz! If two of those at 1.33 GHz sits in Xserves right now, there can't be too much trouble putting two 970 in there. I can't believe that the Xserve 1U design is already pressed to the limit already. They might have to redesign the front and/or rear just to open up some ventilation, but that's not an impossible obsticle to overcome, and certainly not an obsticle that demands a 3U case.
We have a coulpe of 2x1.33 Xserves stacked in a rack and they are running at 100% almost 24/7.. they haven't come anyway near any warning due to heat. And, they might do som clever redesign in the Xserve G5 with climate zones just like in the Power Mac G5 to better handle the heat issue. As it is now, the Xserves really have no air intake and that seems kind of stupid.
Originally posted by Henriok
I can't see the relevence in bringin the 7447 into the equation. All comparisons should be made to a know quantity, and that is the 7455@1.33 that's in the Xserves right now. If Apple can make such a configuration work then a similar one should also work.
I was making a point about heat density, in which case the only relevant parameters are wattage and surface area.
The 7447 you compared is can't possibly be as large as the 970 since the 970 is made up of approximately 60% more transistors (33 million to 52 million). You just said that a larger chip is easier to cool, so even if it runs hotter it might still be easier to manage, according to you own words.
Go check for yourself. They're exactly the same size.
The 7447 isn't a very space efficient design. That's one reason why it's able to run cool.
According to this page @ Motorola a 7455 can consume 35 W typical and peak at 50 W, and that's at 1 GHz! If two of those at 1.33 GHz sits in Xserves right now, there can't be too much trouble putting two 970 in there.
Considering that 970s can chew over 70W, I'll leave it to Apple to decide that. Also, you're still ignoring the heat output of the rest of the motherboard. Apple doesn't have that luxury.
We have a coulpe of 2x1.33 Xserves stacked in a rack and they are running at 100% almost 24/7.. they haven't come anyway near any warning due to heat.
They had damn well better not. If Apple rolls out a G5 Xserve, you can bet that they'll run with the same margin of safety, at the very least.
G5 support
"One big change for Panther Server will be its support for the G5. Mac OS X Jaguar Server does not support the G5 and Goguen confirmed that Apple would not upgrade Jaguar Server to support the G5 in the future.
Currently, Apple's rackmount server, the Xserve, is still running a G4 processor, but organizations could take advantage of the G5 optimizations in Panther Server if they had a cluster or similar setup. Of course, Apple will upgrade the Xserve with the G5 at some point in the future, but no timeframe has been set.
For the time being, Apple will ship the Xserve with Jaguar Server and Panther Server for those organizations that need a bit more time before they upgrade.
"This reflects the need of some organizations that have standardized on Jaguar Server and may not upgrade to Panther Server as their standard deployment for a few months," said Goguen."
That tells me no G5 X-serve or whatever anytime soon.
The G5s aren't the first warm CPUs to be sold in a server. I do agree that a larger form factor with >2 processors is possible at some point.
http://www.pc.ibm.com/ca/eserver/opt...SMBSrvListCAEN
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1258
As for pointing towards Apple's over-engineered G5 case, you can run the highest speed Athlon 64s/Pentium 4s/Xeons with just a single heatsink and fan unit attached to it. Apple probably intended to use the G5 case for a year or two after launch, so it's a very forward looking design.
Originally posted by Amorph
It has less to do with some notion of huge heat sinks and more to do with the fact that the 970 draws anywhere from two to almost four times the power of a 7447 at the same die size. That's a cooling problem, and a 1U rack unit is hard to cool.
Now, it's possible that TS is dead wrong, and Apple will surprise us all with a 1U G5 Xserve. But if it does ship it'll be an engineering marvel.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see why. My Xserve (1st gen) sits directly above a dual Xeon Dell 1U server. Granted, it doesn't have the storage options that my Xserve does, but Apple could swap out quad 120GB drive bays for dual 300GB bays and open up a hell of a lot of airflow space. The G5 most certainly does not need the cooling that the Xeon does.
The heat coming out the back of the Dell 1U is very noticable, where the Xserve you can feel the airflow, but no heat. I think Apple has options here to keep it in a 1U form factor.
there will be a 1U Xserve. there is no doubt about it.
the Xserve is attractive for a number of reasons but one of those reasons is the cost effectiveness of housing a 1U server.
So if they can have those CPUs and other components in blade servers so should Apple. With Apple using IDE drivers (or serial ATA) instead of the classical SCSI they are even saving some heat output...
I am sure Apple could make those blade servers today but with the small market share they have they are smarter if they combine the intoduction of the blade servers with some nice apps (Pixar)
Or it could be that IBM want to get their blades out before Apple