Just a teensy note (or two) of caution: We don't currently have sufficient power to plug such a beast in at the space. Perhaps it would be better to finish renos before buying such a spiffy (and expensive) new toy.
And will you guys really use it? On Aug 26, 2012 10:14 AM, "Stefan penner" <stefan.pen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stuff to consider: > > Actual usage vs cost of operation vs cost of maintenance/upkeep > > > On Sunday, August 26, 2012, chris kluka wrote: > >> And, at last note, I accept your challenge, sir. I will debait you in a >> fortress of our piers. I stand ready at a moments notice!! ON GUARD!! >> >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, chris kluka <asd...@asdlkf.net> wrote: >> >> So, back to the debait, I doubt that it would have "capacity to spare". >> >> Even if we kill any boxen doing prime grid or pi or simmilar tasks, I >> just dont feel like a single quad core server (even with VT) is going to be >> enough horse power for (presumably 15-45) virtual machines. >> >> More imortantly, I do not like the prospect of running that many >> workloads on desktop grade equipment, with out iLo or any propper form of >> remote management. >> >> >> Lets be clear on this point: $2500 does not represent "more cores and >> more ram"; $2500 represents "20x as many cores, 20x as much ram, iLo remote >> management, precise power metering and historical graphing, reconfigurable >> switching fabric with a 20Gbps internal switching stack, up to 8 Gbps blade >> enclosure to switch stack aggregate trunk, 6 redundant power supplies, 2 >> redundant network cards per blade, and all the blades themselves would be >> fully redundant and clustered." >> >> The iLo management, to most of us i assume who would be working with this >> system, is relatively important, and I personally put a fair bit of weight >> behind that component in deciding (1x beefy server vs blades). >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM, chris kluka <asd...@asdlkf.net> wrote: >> >> Quick comparison page: http://ark.intel.com/compare/36547,33924 >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM, chris kluka <asd...@asdlkf.net> wrote: >> >> What socket is the processor slot in the VMServer? >> >> I see it has a Core 2 Q8200 in it. I have a Core 2 Q9550 laying around I >> would trade 1:1 for. >> >> The 9550 is slightly faster, way more L2 cache, and has the VT >> extensions. >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Stefan Penner >> <stefan.pen...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> +1 Improve a VM server, over a farm of machines that will be totally >> under utilized. >> >> On 2012-08-26, at 10:27 AM, Mark Jenkins <m...@parit.ca> wrote: >> >> > I watched the blade discussion with interest. >> > >> > The amount of compute capacity being contemplated is massive -- it's >> well beyond the peak resources needs of everything in the server room at >> present. >> > (that is, if we ignore anyone doing optimal Golomb rulers, prime >> hunting, RSA numbers, etc, as these are infinite needs of indefinite scope >> that suck up whatever you throw up at them) >> > >> > If your goal is to just consolidate the current workloads in the most >> energy efficient way it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on an >> action that puts even more capacity online. Whatever you make available to >> people will in the end get used. [that is, we will often have a higher >> percentage of the blades blazing] >> > (even if you ban or put a limit on the infinite-indefinite stuff) >> > >> > You don't need to spend $2,500 when $400 to $900 in upgrades to our VM >> server would be enough to consolidate everything running right now and with >> capacity to spare. As such, I am launching a capital capital campaign for >> that: >> > http://skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Vmsrv#Capital_Campaign >> > >> > Also seeking project funding: >> > >> http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Proposed_projects#VM_server_hardware_upgrades >> > """ >> > Current upgrade project is to switch to a CPU with VT extensions, which >> will improve VM performance, allow for 64bit guest OS, and also make more >> guest operating systems available that are currently a no-go with >> >> > _______________________________________________ > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ >
_______________________________________________ SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
