On Oct 25, 2005, at 9:08 PM, Randall Shimizu wrote:
So the question then becomes is the blade the right platform ....??? After all 10-20 not all that much. Would not a large SMP machine be much more suitable.....?? Now of course scalability is entirely different for Linux and Window, but does raise some interesting roi questions....
Well, you have to remember, too, that the original design of these "client" blades was that you'd have one per desktop on the office floor. The important bits were on the blade, in the server room, to simplify maintenance. So, one user per blade.
Now, if you're talking anywhere from 10-20 users per blade, that's a significant savings you can realize (if it's really workable.)
The nice thing about blades v. a single large server for hosting these kinds of users is scalability. Need 10 more users, but your large SMP box is maxed out? Yup, time to purchase a second massive server, possibly purchasing another 200-user capacity (at a 200-user price point) for 10 more users. With the blade solution, you just slam in another blade (or, worst case, buy another blade chassis and toss a single blade in it). Much cheaper to scale per user, and much more flexible, too.
What if you primarily have Windows (or Linux) users, but need a small percentage of Linux (or Windows) desktops to support some application? Big SMP systems as hosts mean you are out of luck unless you have another large system you can re-purpose. Blades let you add that capacity as you need it.
Blade systems, in conjunction with the latest VMWare clustering solutions and even Xen/Linux clusters, can be made in to extremely powerful, flexible computing resources for applications which are not CPU-bound. I.e., 90% of all office computer work.
Gregory -- Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
