1U And 3U G5 Xserve's?

[MacRumors]

According to the most recent reports... Apple is planning on introducing both 1U (single G5) Xserves as well as 3U (dual G5) Xserves at MacWorld Expo. No knowledge processor speeds are available.

These two sizes would be a bit unusual from a space/power standpoint, in that two 1U machines would provide more power and less space than a single Dual 3U machine.

Regardless, ongoing hints have suggested that Apple has been working on both 3U and 1U enclosures for the Xserve.

 

[dstorey]

this would be very strange, with 3 1U Xserves having 3 processors, more hard disk space and memory (i would guess) than the 3U Xserve. of course they would be much more money, but even still. I would think that a 3U would at least have to have better tech inside and possibly up to 2 G5's for it to take up that much space and seem good value per space. Anyone know how much smaller an Xserve is to a powermac and how much bigger a 3U is?

What, with all these iBox rumors flying around, I thnik that should become the iServe , serving your home media t oyour entertainment system, while the xserves being enterprise servers. the iServe could even have a voice like jeeves when yopu switch it on haha...Just need to add jeeves 54 year old British male to the text to speach list

 

[Interiority]

This is excellent news, if true. I'm sure Apple will find a way to differentiate the 1U product from the 3U. I always assumed that the XServe was one of the least likely products to be updated at MWSF... not because it isn't way overdue for an update, but simply because the focus tends to be on consumer / mainstream products. As I recall, when the XServe came out Steve announced a special press event at MacWorld, and then held a seperate launch event for business types...

 

[Bear]

Originally posted by dstorey
this would be very strange, with 3 1U Xserves having 3 processors, more hard disk space and memory (i would guess) than the 3U Xserve. of course they would be much more money, but even still. I would think that a 3U would at least have to have better tech inside and possibly up to 2 G5's for it to take up that much space and seem good value per space. Anyone know how much smaller an Xserve is to a powermac and how much bigger a 3U is?

A U is 1.75 inches tall and for a standard 19" rack about 17.6 inches wide. The current Xserve is 28 inches deep.

So a 3U unit would be 5.25" tall by 17.6" by who knows how deep. Apple will probably try to keep to about the same depth. A Powermac G5 is 8.1" by 18.7" by 20.1". Using the current depth of the Xserbe, a 3U Xserve would be 2587.20 cubic inches and the Powermac G5 is 3043.1 cubic inches. I expect the Xserve to be able to have room for a lot more hard drives internally then the Powermac does.

Some advantages of the XServe (even a 3U design) over a Powermac are:

• Less soace used.
• More hard drive space
• Easier to service
• Easier to toss in a rack

 

[awulf]

Maybe Apple is working on a new XServe RAID, this could be the U3 unit that they might have heard of and confused it with the XServe, which is the U1 design.

Or maybe the U3 XServe could be a XServe & XServe RAID unit in one.

 

[Dreadnought]

These are pretty old rumors. Have been hearing them for over 2 months now. So, they must be true Anyhow, the 3U Xserve will probably hold more stuff (hd's, cards to insert and so on, maybe even a built in lcd screen, so a screen hooked up to it wouldn't be necessary, but what do I know!).

 

[wizard]

Re: 1U And 3U G5 Xserve's?

What I find a bit bogus about the single processor 1U unit is the reality that dual processor machines using some of the hottest processors going have been available from the intel world for years. It s very difficult to believe that Apple can't build a similar 1U machine. If all Apple was able to deliver is a single processor 1U machine that would reflect very poorly on the company.

Also the existance of a 1U machine does not really have any impact on the availability of a 3U unit. Genrally they are directed at different markets. So the 3U unit could be a processor or it could be a new raid unit, in the end it doesn't matter the existance of either has little impact on the 1U machine.

Thanks
Dave

Originally posted by Macrumors
According to the most recent reports... Apple is planning on introducing both 1U (single G5) Xserves as well as 3U (dual G5) Xserves at MacWorld Expo. No knowledge processor speeds are available.

These two sizes would be a bit unusual from a space/power standpoint, in that two 1U machines would provide more power and less space than a single Dual 3U machine.

Regardless, ongoing hints have suggested that Apple has been working on both 3U and 1U enclosures for the Xserve.

 

[Compufix]

Server fixes

I am hoping that they will also fix a few things like have build in hardware raid 5, dual everything....and some sort of helper card for remote control like the Compawq and Dell servers we currently use.

But they Definately need Dual power Supplies, Hardware Raid (at least in the 3U) and I would hope built in PS/2 ports since all my existing server KVM's are PS/2. Now if I was building an all Mac server farm, USB KVM would be the way I would go....but since I am integrating into an established server farm.....I use usb/ps2 adaptors......


We shall see.

 

[nuckinfutz]

I agree with the poster above. Apple should be able to offer Dual G5 in a 1U enclosure. I mean let's be honest people the G5 at 55wats per proc is hotter than a G4 but still equal or less in wattage with Xeons in Rack Mounted Servers.

With that in mind though I wouldn't mind seeing a 3U Server. If Apple created a 3U server and used the extra space for 3 PCI-X files. 4 SATA bays and a quiet cooling system Digital Audio/Video mavens would prefer that to a standard Tower.

 

[mim]

This could be just wishful thinking to the extreme, but maybe it's xserve 3U, starting at 2 G5's, with the option of 4?

Along the lines of what other people are saying though, it's probably a 3U just to have space to whack in a great loads of drives, without having to get an xraid too.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by mim
This could be just wishful thinking to the extreme, but maybe it's xserve 3U, starting at 2 G5's, with the option of 4?

Along the lines of what other people are saying though, it's probably a 3U just to have space to whack in a great loads of drives, without having to get an xraid too.

The hard part is not strapping 4 G5s on a motherboard but rather finding memory in quantitiy that can keep up.

DDR 400 is 6400mbps (3200*2) in a Dual Channel Configuration.

With 4 procs you would need at least 12,800mbps throughput real world and the system would love even more YIKES. We better wait for DDRII or something else before jumping into Quadology

 

[Audacity Works]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz If Apple created a 3U server and used the extra space for 3 PCI-X files. 4 SATA bays and a quiet cooling system Digital Audio/Video mavens would prefer that to a standard Tower.

Absolutely! I'd love to have a rackmount G5 with enough PCI slots for my ProTools HD|3 rig, a SCSI accelerator, and a souped-up dual digital video card.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

Blade Chassis?

3u is the right size for a blade server.

Maybe "starting with 2 processors".

The 980 has the bus it needs, though...

 

[wizard]

Even Apples curent XServe would make an excellent computer to use in place of the older PowerMacs and Imacs. The biggest issue was the additional cost.

Thanks
dave

Originally posted by Audacity Works
Absolutely! I'd love to have a rackmount G5 with enough PCI slots for my ProTools HD|3 rig, a SCSI accelerator, and a souped-up dual digital video card.

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The hard part is not strapping 4 G5s on a motherboard but rather finding memory in quantitiy that can keep up.

DDR 400 is 6400mbps (3200*2) in a Dual Channel Configuration.

With 4 procs you would need at least 12,800mbps throughput real world and the system would love even more YIKES. We better wait for DDRII or something else before jumping into Quadology

AppleInsider, at least, has said that the U3 rev. 2 will support 533 MHz RAM. Whether that means DDR or DDR II, I wouldn't know.

FWIW
WM

 

[ColdZero]

You don't "need" 12 GB of memory bandwidth for 4 processors. Each processor isn't directly connected to the memory like the athlon 64s are. They are connected to a system controller which then connects to the memory and other stuff in the system. If you have 4 processors attached to that controller, they will share the memory bandwidth that is available to that controller. Each may have a dedicated FSB, but that doesn't mean the memory has to be. Look at it right now. The FSB of a G5 can transfer over 8GB of data per second, the memory can only transfer 6.4GB/s and it still works fine. There won't be any exotic memory technology for the XServes to give them more bandwidth. Apple will use existing technology to do it. Using some proprietary memory technology before the rest of the PC world would drive the cost of the XServe up so high that nobody would be able to buy it or upgrade it.

 

[jwhitnah]

1 U vs 3U

I know nothing about servers, so don't flame me. Why is it so important that the server be 1 U not 3 U? Are we installing these things in closets? Also, I always thought it was better to have a bigger rack!

 

[Freg3000]

Re: 1 U vs 3U

Originally posted by jwhitnah
I know nothing about servers, so don't flame me. Why is it so important that the server be 1 U not 3 U? Are we installing these things in closets? Also, I always thought it was better to have a bigger rack!

Well a 3U rack takes up 3 times more space than a 1U. Bigger is not always better.

 

[hmmfe]

Re: 1 U vs 3U

Originally posted by jwhitnah
I know nothing about servers, so don't flame me. Why is it so important that the server be 1 U not 3 U? Are we installing these things in closets? Also, I always thought it was better to have a bigger rack!

Short answer is it might not be important at all. 1U servers became popular for co-location and xSP uses where rack space costs money.

Otherwise, it is not really important at all. It has a certain aesthetic appeal and is the new thing (along with blade servers). Personally, I'd rather have a nicely done 2-3U enclosure that has more room for drives and requires fewer fans to keep cool.

 

[wizard]

Re: 1 U vs 3U

Personal I find smaller tighly packed racks to be more flexible. A 1U allows you to fit more processing power into your closets and keep them away from prying eyes.

Ideally though a 1U and 3U rack mounted boxes would be designed to service differrent needs. Right now Apple has a one size fits all approach, this of course means a certain segment of their market is less than satisfied with what they get from Apple. This results in Apple customers looking in the closets of other customers to check out their racks. Most companies prefer that all attention be focused on their racks only.

Dave

Originally posted by jwhitnah
I know nothing about servers, so don't flame me. Why is it so important that the server be 1 U not 3 U? Are we installing these things in closets? Also, I always thought it was better to have a bigger rack!

 

[stingerman]

Re: Server fixes

Originally posted by Compufix
I am hoping that they will also fix a few things like have build in hardware raid 5, dual everything....and some sort of helper card for remote control like the Compawq and Dell servers we currently use.

But they Definately need Dual power Supplies, Hardware Raid (at least in the 3U) and I would hope built in PS/2 ports since all my existing server KVM's are PS/2. Now if I was building an all Mac server farm, USB KVM would be the way I would go....but since I am integrating into an established server farm.....I use usb/ps2 adaptors......


We shall see.

If you want that much redundancy you buy two 1U servers, that is the point isn't it? By the time you add all that stuff into one unit, the costs go to high and you would be better off have a another unit anyway for a bunch of reasons.

As far as PS/2 goes, just get a PS/2 to USB cable, that's what I did for my KVM. PS/2 is legacy, please don't suggest that they complicate things with legacy crap.

 

[stingerman]

Re: 1 U vs 3U

Originally posted by jwhitnah
I know nothing about servers, so don't flame me. Why is it so important that the server be 1 U not 3 U? Are we installing these things in closets? Also, I always thought it was better to have a bigger rack!

Data centers are expensive and thus you want to use he space as efficiently as possible. A Typical 42U Rack can hold 42 xServe's whereas a 3U server would require 3 Racks. Let's say you are paying a $1,000 a Rack, that is an additional $2,000 / Month. So a 1U form factor can save you the price of 8 xServes per month (ie, if you were leasing them)! Now imagine if Apple released blade servers, where you can have 8 dual blades in a 3U form, that would allow for 112 blades per rack and you would be able to fit the power of all these G5s into the space of one small 42U rack (or 1/10th of what you see in the picture!)

Not to mention that typically blade servers use a lot less electricity than whole servers and the savings can add an additional few thousand per month depending on the scale.

 

[Waluigi]

New XRAID

What type, size, and number of hard drives are expected in the new xraid?

--Waluigi

 

[hmmfe]

Re: Re: Server fixes

Originally posted by stingerman
If you want that much redundancy you buy two 1U servers, that is the point isn't it? By the time you add all that stuff into one unit, the costs go to high and you would be better off have a another unit anyway for a bunch of reasons.

And there are a "bunch" of reasons why you would not want to hassle with multiple servers where one would do nicely.

I guess it all boils down to what Apple wants to do with the XServe platform. For now, I see the XServe as a SMB server. It will be interesting to see what is announced as it will shed some light on where Apple believes the XServe is going.

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The hard part is not strapping 4 G5s on a motherboard but rather finding memory in quantitiy that can keep up.

DDR 400 is 6400mbps (3200*2) in a Dual Channel Configuration.

With 4 procs you would need at least 12,800mbps throughput real world and the system would love even more YIKES. We better wait for DDRII or something else before jumping into Quadology

Technically, I see your point and agree... but I got thinking... if Memory bandwidth is such an issue then how does a cluster work sucessfully? Is it because each set of processors has it's own set of memory bandwidth, and the communication between machines is restricted by the throughput of the cabling?