PDA

View Full Version : Xserve Specs?




MacRumors
Jul 1, 2003, 06:27 PM
One unconfirmed source claims that the Xserve G5 is due in just a few weeks, and the configuarations should include a Dual 2GHz G5, a single 2GHz G5, and a Dual 2GHz Cluster Configuration.

Edit: Typo Corrected.



mikeyredk
Jul 1, 2003, 06:49 PM
A single 1 ghz g5?
that doesnt' make sense does it

fef
Jul 1, 2003, 07:05 PM
This definitely must be a typo...
Can MacRumors confirm if it is please?

Lanbrown
Jul 1, 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by mikeyredk
A single 1 ghz g5?
that doesnt' make sense does it

Why not? Not everything needs a super powerful processor. I use Sun V10/V120's for DNS/DHCP servers because they are small, energy efficient, handle the task at hand and very affordable. While an Intel solution could be cheaper and more powerful, the additional power is not needed. Sun also offers great service with a solid stable platform and OS. Processing power is not required in every situation.

SpamJunkie
Jul 1, 2003, 07:26 PM
1ghz G5 would be slower than the current Xserve. That would only make sense if it was much, much cheaper. Perhaps the Xserve would become a sub $1000 G5? lol

GregA
Jul 1, 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by SpamJunkie
1ghz G5 would be slower than the current Xserve. That would only make sense if it was much, much cheaper. Perhaps the Xserve would become a sub $1000 G5? lol Maybe it's an "iServe". Low end computer for the home, hidden away somewhere safe. Then you buy some cheap remote terminals. (I know, I know... someone might have noticed I'm a little stuck on the terminals idea lately).

Or for clustering?

mikeyredk
Jul 1, 2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
Why not? Not everything needs a super powerful processor. I use Sun V10/V120's for DNS/DHCP servers because they are small, energy efficient, handle the task at hand and very affordable. While an Intel solution could be cheaper and more powerful, the additional power is not needed. Sun also offers great service with a solid stable platform and OS. Processing power is not required in every situation.

well another reason is that the existing sales of powermacs will crush the sales of the 1 ghz xserves unless they offer more ram capacity or other special features

Chef Ramen
Jul 1, 2003, 07:57 PM
i call ************. id say that 1ghz g5 is more likely to be a single 2ghz or 1.8ghz.

nuckinfutz
Jul 1, 2003, 08:31 PM
A 1Ghz G5 Xserve would still be faster than a 1.3Ghz G4 for bus reason alone, not to mention being able to queue and dispatch more instructions.

However, I doubt Apple develops a lowend G5 Xserve because it would interfere with the Powermacs unless it was severely stripped. It'd make a nice render box at $1499 though.

arn
Jul 1, 2003, 08:41 PM
Sorry - big typo.

Single 2GHz.

arn

Lanbrown
Jul 1, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by mikeyredk
well another reason is that the existing sales of powermacs will crush the sales of the 1 ghz xserves unless they offer more ram capacity or other special features

How many Power Macs can you get into the standard 19" rack? You can get more IU devices in there then Power Macs. What if you wanted a server just for web, or ftp, or DNS, SMTP, etc. All of those tasks don't need 2GHz or even dual processors to handle light to moderate loads. Thinking that every system needs a fast processor is ludicrous and is the thinking that Intel and company wants people to believe.

Do you know how many DNS request a low-end Sun box can handle? You can run an entire region of a large company on two boxes. Make the primary DNS and secondary DHCP on one and make the other the primary DHCP and secondary DNS. You do not need dual processors or the latest and greatest processor for some tasks. Anything extra is just more capital spent for something that would never be used, higher power and cooling requirements. All of those play a factor in the TCO. If you could get three 1GHz boxes for price of one dual 2Ghz box and you were not even going to be utilizing the full potential of the dual 2GHz, what was a better buy? Now you can setup a cluster for redundancy with money leftover.

What about a 1GHz box for home use to act as a raid storage, print server, etc? You don't need a dual 2GHz for that, or a graphics card, etc. I know many people who would jump at a low-end IU box just for that purpose.

I think you need to look at the bigger picture. Not everything needs fast processors and lots of RAM to run, or even additional PCI slots. If that were the case, no company would buy 1U servers.

Sol
Jul 1, 2003, 10:03 PM
The 1GHz Xserve specs were apparently a typing mistake.

Considering that the last Xserves were not built with the then-fastest G4 processors I would bet on the same thing happening again. A dual 1.8 G5 Xserve would allow Apple to sell more of the dual 2.0 GHz G5 PowerMacs and not have to worry about supplies from IBM as much as with the higher clocked CPUs. As someone has stated here before me, servers do not need the most powerful processors but they do need to be heat efficient and thus reliable.

rog
Jul 1, 2003, 11:47 PM
That was hilarious. Everyone having a tizzy because of a typo. Especially those that started arguing in favor of a 1GHz G5 Xserve!

I can't wait for more new PB tidbits to come out. I'm going through speculation withdrawl after WWDC.

Longey Nowze
Jul 2, 2003, 01:59 AM
did everyone forgot that the top of the line Xserve was actually slower than the the top of the line PM G4? it topped at 1.33GHz IIRC it was for cooling issues.

I wont b e suprised to see the new Xserves released with at slower speeds than 2GHz.

edit: actually I'm more excited about the new mobo, would they use SATA? PCI-X?

Thank you
MaT

Fender2112
Jul 2, 2003, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by arn
Sorry - big typo.

Single 2GHz.

arn

No. It was a small typo. It just had a huge effect.:)

sparkleytone
Jul 2, 2003, 07:41 AM
hrrrrm...

anyone else have a hard time believing that this beast can be fit into a 1U casing??

dongmin
Jul 2, 2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
hrrrrm...

anyone else have a hard time believing that this beast can be fit into a 1U casing??
no


Can someone enlighten me on the possibilities of this clustering setup? Would it have anything to do with hardware or is it purely a software thing?

Lanbrown
Jul 2, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by dongmin
no


Can someone enlighten me on the possibilities of this clustering setup? Would it have anything to do with hardware or is it purely a software thing?

That would depend on what type of cluster you want to do. Usually they are software based, but some are hardware based as well. It all depends on the application.

szark
Jul 2, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
hrrrrm...

anyone else have a hard time believing that this beast can be fit into a 1U casing??

No, because IBM plans to use these processors for blade servers, which are generally smaller than or equal to a 1U form factor.

Remember that the large heatsinks on the Power Mac are there to keep the noise levels down. That is not a primary concern in a rack server environment, so they can use louder fans and smaller heatsinks.

Mr. Anderson
Jul 2, 2003, 12:35 PM
So what's special about the cluster option? Does it require special hardware to work or is it just a software issue?

D

painandgreed
Jul 2, 2003, 03:08 PM
Looks like the difference between the cluser and the normal is a lack of video card and CD drive which would not be needed if it's just connecting onto a core Xserve. So, if you wanted an Xserve cluster, you'd buy a normal XServer and then as many cluster units as you wanted to add to it. I haven't looked at the Mac's cluset set up but I would expect that then you'd have to buy separate ethernet or fibre cards to connect all the cluster units into the fabric. Everything is admined by the normal XServe.

dstorey
Jul 2, 2003, 05:08 PM
would the Xserve cluster nodes be any good for a render farm, as they have no graphics cards, but dont graphics apps these day push everything onto the gpu..or is this just for the local machine..I have no idea about this area so i'm just being curious.... If they just use the processor then an Xserve g5 controlling a g5 xServe cluder node rack and a xServe raid or two would be a sweet set up, with an army or g5 power mac's of course to design the scenes that need rendering.

ffakr
Jul 2, 2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by dongmin
Can someone enlighten me on the possibilities of this clustering setup? Would it have anything to do with hardware or is it purely a software thing?

clustering is essentially a two part proposition.

Physical:
You need to actually build a cluster of machines. this means they need to be connected together on a network.
For some configurations the network can be slow and high latency. A good example of this would be distributed rendering where CPUs could render alternate frames or they could render chunks of frames (to be assembled when done).
Other tasks need high speed and possibly ultra low latency network connections. Imagine a program that could spawn many many threads (streams of computation) and these threads were occasionally dependent on each other... that is stream "Q" can't start till stream "K" gets done and "Q" better finish because "X" is coming up and it needs that data from "Q".
For the lower bandwidth clusters, a 100BaseT network is fine.
Small clusters (few nodes) can actually use IP over Firewire, which has pretty low latency and good speed.
For high speed, but low cost networks Gig Ethernet is the way to go... but there are proprietary networking technologies that are very fast and super low latency like Myrinet (but they cost a fortune).

Software:
On the other end, you need some sort of Software support to actually cluster.
Some applications have clustering support built in. They often use a client/server approach where one master submits chunks of work to the other nodes then the master gets the returned work and reassembles it. Shake and the new xCode work kind of like this (AFAIK).
OS X also supports things like Suns Grid software and some other related Grid like products.
What I'm waiting for is a real OS Level (Kernel Level) plug and play clustering technology from Apple. Something that can distribute a local thread to any other node designated as a cluster member. Mach should be able to do this, you just need to run code that was written to be highly threaded.

aarond12
Jul 2, 2003, 06:41 PM
I read one of the Apple benchmarks that talked about a single 2GHz model. There is no such an animal in the tower model. I wonder if those benchmarks were from the single 2GHz XServe?

painandgreed
Jul 2, 2003, 07:07 PM
would the Xserve cluster nodes be any good for a render farm, as they have no graphics cards, but dont graphics apps these day push everything onto the gpu..or is this just for the local machine..

I don't have any real knowledge either, but I think what is going on is that the cards are doing their own rendering for the display, but this isn't enough power for actual rendering that is going on in a render farm. Graphics cards are getting powerful. I think I heard of somebody planning to include them in distributed computering programs, but they still aren't up to an actual main processor running large scale rendering apps. The cluster is working all as one large multi-processor computer so grpahics cards aren't needed for all of the nodes.

Allegory: Relate desktop computers offloading video computations to graphics cards like a father giving the teenage son yard work to do. Kids, not doign anything, saves the father time. Works great. If the father was going to start a landscape company, he doesn't want to hire a bunch of teenagers rather than a bunch of men.

scem0
Jul 3, 2003, 12:12 AM
Seems to hot......

How many fans would be in this? 12?!?

;)

scem0

Rocketman
Jul 3, 2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by ffakr
clustering is essentially a two part proposition.

What I'm waiting for is a real OS Level (Kernel Level) plug and play clustering technology from Apple. Something that can distribute a local thread to any other node designated as a cluster member. Mach should be able to do this, you just need to run code that was written to be highly threaded.

Isn't that what Pooch is? It is a resource not a Kernal element, but given how everything is high bandwith now and the program itself is a resource it seems like a non issue now.

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar2.jpg


My next desktop Mac will be a cluster and my next portable a 970 Powerbook.

k2k koos
Jul 3, 2003, 02:34 PM
Let's hope this is true and it's a relatively quiet machine. As much as I like the tower, it has no rack mounting option. http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/frown.gif
I like the x serve as it can be rack mounted into my project studio rack, amongst my other synth modules. Since I have no mics in the same room, noise is not a huge issue, but still the quieter the better for monitoring reasons.
I know an xserve G5 is not going to be that quiet, but I can dream can I? http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
A single 1.8 or dual 1.6 would do the trick for me, I'm no power user, I like my external hardware synths too much to replace them with software.

MrMacMan
Jul 3, 2003, 07:55 PM
Yeah guys I think a lower power 970 would be needed for the xServer because I think apple stated it would need either alot of fans or not 1U...

jaedreth
Jul 15, 2003, 04:27 PM
Apple's primary concern with this won't be:

Will one 1U XServe G5 be more feature rich than a PowerMac G5?

But instead will be:

Will the price/performance ratio and needed features for the XServe's market be enough for it's target audience and still be able to fit it in a 1U?

They may have to offer a 1GHz G5 in single, dual, and cluster configurations. But then beef the architecture up. Use some kick ass blowers and heat syncs. I doubt this product will be quiet. But they will likely have lower prices, especially since the G5 chips themselves are relatively inexpensive.

Thus more people will opt for the Cluster options, and fill up a 42 U Rack, and have all the power they need. More than before, that is.

Either way, it's still G5, and when Panther server ships, it will be all the sweeter.

Jaedreth

ffakr
Jul 21, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by jaedreth
But instead will be:

Will the price/performance ratio and needed features for the XServe's market be enough for it's target audience and still be able to fit it in a 1U?

price/performance typically isn't in the favor of 1U rack servers. You can always buy a desktop for less than a similar rack. The case its self costs more usually.. then there is the engineering to get everything to fit.
You don't buy 1U racks for price/performance. You buy them for computational density and for redundancy.
You can't fit 42 desktops into the area of 1 - 7ft rack, and your typical desktop machine doesn't have redundant power or hardware raid (w/ hot swap) built in. (*note.. xServe doesn't have redundant power, but a lot of rack units do)

They may have to offer a 1GHz G5 in single, dual, and cluster configurations. But then beef the architecture up. Use some kick ass blowers and heat syncs. I doubt this product will be quiet. But they will likely have lower prices, especially since the G5 chips themselves are relatively inexpensive.

Thus more people will opt for the Cluster options, and fill up a 42 U Rack, and have all the power they need. More than before, that is.

I don't think that Apple will have a lot of trouble putting the G5 in a 1U. They have the ability to push a lot more air through since rack units don't have to sit on your desktop and and be quiet.
Remember, the G5s are putting out heat in the same range as the current G4s, which is a lot less than the heat given off by Athlon, P4, or Opteron (and all those chips have tons of 2cpu 1U solutions available).
The xServe G5 will have to be significantly redesigned though. A dual G5 board in a 1U will be severely marginalized if it doesn't ship with a gaggle of DIMM slots. People are going to want to take advantage of large memory spaces in the server segment (much more than on the desktop IMHO). I think Apple's biggest design concern will be where to put it all... not how to cool it.

JMHO