Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476

    * Now Thats A Server

    I was just reading the June edition of the RedmondReport when I ran across this.

    Microsoft and HP currently outfitted their joint HP Integrity Superdome server with 1TB of RAM, 64 Itanium-2 processors and 2700 36GB SCSI disks for a run at the Transaction Processing Council's TPC-C benchmark.

    Hmmm, now thats a Server...
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,305
    More like a cluster.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    Originally posted by Aea
    More like a cluster.

    A single server with a SAN. The HP Integrity Superdome handles up to 64 processors running Server2003, 128 processors running HP-UX, or can run two Server2003 64 way environments on a single server.

    http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/...end/index.html
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Damn, that is one hot server. I'd love to see its load average when trying to compute the 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th digit of pi.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Hartland, WI
    Posts
    716
    Buy me one.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Proud She-Geek
    Posts
    1,722
    That is one HUGE server! wow!

    ...still not unlimited though LOL
    <?php echo "Signature here"; ?>

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    979
    I'd rather have an Altix 3000 if I was being all dreamy like.

    http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/

    Scaling to 512 Itanium 2 processors in a single node, Altix 3700 Bx2 is SGI's newest and most powerful Linux solution for high performance computing. Altix 3700 Bx2 leverages the powerful SGI® NUMAflex™ global shared-memory architecture to derive maximum application performance from new high-density CPU bricks. The latest configuration also doubles available bandwidth between Altix bricks with SGI's NUMAlink™ 4 interconnect technology—the industry's fastest at 6.4GB/sec and less than 1 microsecond MPI latency. Each node in an Altix 3700 system can contain 16 to 512 processors, up to 6 terabytes of global shared memory, and 48 XIO™ buses; and delivers over 3 gigabytes per second of sustained I/O bandwidth.
    All resources in the system are managed through a single instance of the operating system—the industry's largest single system image.
    Plus it runs Linux!
    Last edited by Jeremy Johnstone; 06-04-2005 at 01:19 AM.
    Jeremy Johnstone
    Personal Blog: http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog

  8. #8
    I'd rather have an opteron dual core based server.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    The Altix looks like an impressive supercomputer. I wonder what OS you have to run to use the full capability.

    Choice of Novell® SUSE® Linux® Enterprise Server 9 or Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® Advanced Server 4.0 (up to 64 processors and 64GB memory per system)
    They say with Linux you're limited to 64 processors and 64GB ram.

    But with either server, I couldn't afford the cooling bill let alone the server
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,235

    Talking

    the setup is known as a HP Superdome

    http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/...ers/superdome/

    there's a video of it here:

    http://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/041..._Tour4_MBR.wmv

    oh and they have Eight of them
    <erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    149
    Originally posted by ALGORYTHM
    the setup is known as a HP Superdome

    http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/...ers/superdome/

    there's a video of it here:

    http://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/041..._Tour4_MBR.wmv

    oh and they have Eight of them
    Wow, very interesting, I was wondering about supplying power to that superdome before i watched the video

  12. #12
    That is a good server, but that would not store all of microsofts sites together, microsoft are domain hogs anyway.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,235
    this isn't a webhosting setup, it's a high end sql database testing setup.
    <erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.

  14. #14
    I'm sure they will be doing their benchmarks versus linux 64-bit on this thing.
    CEO of SingleHop

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    979
    Originally posted by midPhase-Zak
    I'm sure they will be doing their benchmarks versus linux 64-bit on this thing.
    Let em! Not that they would listen to me, but I would then just pull out the Altix 3700 benchmarks running Linux. Considering the Altix routinely beats the HP system running Linux, I doubt there would be any chance it would even come close running something put out by Redmond and crew.
    Jeremy Johnstone
    Personal Blog: http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    3,498
    So insanely awesome... I wonder how many csource servers I could run on that... Oh the possibilities!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    Originally posted by midPhase-Zak
    I'm sure they will be doing their benchmarks versus linux 64-bit on this thing.
    Wrong, it is to test the transactional speed of the system, so that HP can wow companies on the power of the server, and MS can wow companies on the scalability of MSSQL. Not everything MS does revolves around bashing Linux.
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by trau
    Not everything MS does revolves around bashing Linux.
    True, but if you think about it, they're effectively bashing Linux, because they're showing how good MSSQL is, compared to others, like MySQL and PostreSQL. MySQL and Postgres both often run on Linux, BSD, and other open-source systems.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    Originally posted by Jeremy Johnstone
    Let em! Not that they would listen to me, but I would then just pull out the Altix 3700 benchmarks running Linux. Considering the Altix routinely beats the HP system running Linux, I doubt there would be any chance it would even come close running something put out by Redmond and crew.
    The Altix is impressive, but its a super computer, not a server. I could have spec'd the HP Integrity Super Computer at the Department of energy, 2000 Itanium2 processors, capable of 11.8 TerraFlops. In 2004 it was the fastest non-classified super computer in the US. I'm sure by now there is something faster. By the way it runs on Linux.
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    True, but if you think about it, they're effectively bashing Linux, because they're showing how good MSSQL is, compared to others, like MySQL and PostreSQL. MySQL and Postgres both often run on Linux, BSD, and other open-source systems.
    Sorry to have to say it, but MySQL and Postgres are fine for small to medium sized databases only. That's not the real estate MS is after for their SQL. They want to prove to the big database users out there that their MSSQL can take on DB2 and Oracle.
    http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=0
    If you look at the top ten list you'll see that an HP Integrity cluster running Red-Hat was number three. But I bet you Microsoft is more concerned with the fact that the top six spots are split between DB2 and Oracle.
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by trau
    Sorry to have to say it, but MySQL and Postgres are fine for small to medium sized databases only. That's not the real estate MS is after for their SQL. They want to prove to the big database users out there that their MSSQL can take on DB2 and Oracle.
    http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=0
    If you look at the top ten list you'll see that an HP Integrity cluster running Red-Hat was number three. But I bet you Microsoft is more concerned with the fact that the top six spots are split between DB2 and Oracle.
    It's true that MySQL and PostreSQL comprise a very limited area of the industrial database market, but I was merely pointing out that Microsoft can still conveniently bash Linux and related open-source products. Besides, you do know that NASA switched from Oracle to MySQL, right? There are many big companies, organizations, and government departments/organizations that have made the switch from closed-source to a Linux-/BSD-based open-source solution. Whether or not they save tons of money, I have no idea. The cost of open-source support would be expensive by itself, so it may not cost a staggeringly less amount to use MySQL, but the difference is probably still there, and it's probably considerable.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    979
    Originally posted by trau
    The Altix is impressive, but its a super computer
    IMHO, a Cray is a super computer. A machine with a standard configuration of 64 processors is not a super computer in my opinion, but rather a very very large multiprocessor machine.

    Source: http://www.cray.com/products/xt3/index.html
    The Cray XT3 operating system UNICOS/lc is designed to run large complex applications and scale efficiently to 30,000 processors.
    Source:
    http://www.cray.com/products/x1e/index.html

    High performance interconnect and memory subsystems allow the Cray X1E system to scale from 16 to 8,192 processors, delivering up to 147 TFLOPS in a single system. The Cray X1E supercomputer and its predecessor, the Cray X1™ supercomputer, are the first vector systems designed to scale to thousands of processors in a single system image.
    Now that is what I call a SUPERcomputer.
    Last edited by Jeremy Johnstone; 06-04-2005 at 11:48 PM.
    Jeremy Johnstone
    Personal Blog: http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    South Daytona, FL
    Posts
    2,476
    Originally posted by Jeremy Johnstone
    [B]IMHO, a Cray is a super computer. A machine with a standard configuration of 64 processors is not a super computer in my opinion, but rather a very very large multiprocessor machine.
    Sorry, but the link you gave talked about a 512 processor system which in my eyes is a super computer. Granted it did say that running Linux it was limited to 64 processors. But if you're only talking about a 64 processor box, I'd agree thats not a supercomputer.
    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    979
    Originally posted by trau
    Sorry, but the link you gave talked about a 512 processor system which in my eyes is a super computer.
    Everyone has their own opinion and I will conceed on that grounds. It's just in my opinion, with computer architecture the way it is now, I don't see a machine as being a "super computer" unless it's got well over a 1,000 processors.
    Jeremy Johnstone
    Personal Blog: http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,508
    Jeez anybody see how much it cost to build some of those systems. I've taken a look at a few every single one I looked at was 5 million +
    Linux junkie | steward.io

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,235
    http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?TB=1&M=11&Y=2004

    that's a list of the top 500 supercomputers. note in the last 400 there are xeons and there's a few superdomes on there too.
    <erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •