Xserve RAID Gets Quiet Boost

[MacRumors]

While not the SATA update that some may be waiting for, Apple today made a whisper-quiet update to its Xserve RAID offering, adding a build-to-order option allowing the unit to be configured with up to 10.5 TB of storage capacity across 14 drives.

Apple also lowered the prices for existing offerings. The new systems are available for configuration at the Apple Store.

[bankshot]

Nice. I was wondering how long it would take them to put 750 GB drives in the Xserve RAID.

We have 2 Xserve RAIDs at work, and man, they're starting to look a little puny. The first one at 2.5 TB seemed astoundingly huge. Then we added the second one a year later at 5.6 TB and we were drowning in disk space. Between the two of them, both configured with 5+0 RAID, we have about 6.4 TB usable space and about 2 TB free.

Now a single unit dwarfs that. I suppose it won't be long until the 1 TB drives are out, giving it up to 14 TB in one unit.

Heh, I still remember looking into getting a 200 GB RAID system for about $50k several years ago. Glad we were able to hold out for the Xserve RAIDs. They've been rock solid.

[Rocketman]

They have not updated the hardware page yet to 10.5 TB

http://www.apple.com/hardware/

BTW do they still refuse to sell empty ADM's?

Rocketman

[BlueRevolution]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

They have not updated the hardware page yet to 10.5 TB

http://www.apple.com/hardware/

BTW do they still refuse to sell empty ADM's?

Rocketman

I almost posted saying, "now they have", but then I realized what you're talking about. I haven't seen that page in over a year, I just type in www.apple.com/whatever and forget the rest.

[centauratlas]

Apple also updated the xserve BTO order page. Previously (at least as of 2 weeks ago) the largest memory size you could BTO was 16GB. They increased that to 32GB - at an extra cost of $23699.

[brett_x]

Why is this a Page 2 story? I mean... it's real news, right? Not just wild speculation. I would have liked to see a small blurb on Page 1.

This small update made sense though.. those 750's have been around for a long time now..

[guzhogi]

Originally Posted by brett_x

Why is this a Page 2 story? I mean... it's real news, right? Not just wild speculation. I would have liked to see a small blurb on Page 1.

This small update made sense though.. those 750's have been around for a long time now..

Because most people probably don't care about xServe RAIDs. If this was on the main page, a lot of people would be asking "Why is this on page 1?" Page 1=more interesting stories (speculation or not), page 2=mildly interesting, but still newsworthy.

Anyone know how much the speed of xServe RAIDS would increase (if at all) if it went to SATA or SAS? Also, how much speed difference would we get between 7,200 RPM drives vs. 10,000 vs. 15,000? Just curious how those would affect throughput (actual Megabytes/second instead of theoretical).

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by guzhogi

Because most people probably don't care about xServe RAIDs. If this was on the main page, a lot of people would be asking "Why is this on page 1?" Page 1=more interesting stories (speculation or not), page 2=mildly interesting, but still newsworthy.

Anyone know how much the speed of xServe RAIDS would increase (if at all) if it went to SATA or SAS? Also, how much speed difference would we get between 7,200 RPM drives vs. 10,000 vs. 15,000? Just curious how those would affect throughput (actual Megabytes/second instead of theoretical).

I think the FC bus is only 400mb/s max.

The rumored Xserve RAID with 6 FC connections (per side) would not be saturated at such a low bandwidth. Low being a relative term of course

The main advantage to SAS is for transactions like a website, accounting database, sales site, iTunes server like stuff. The advantage to a (unreleased Apple) multi-channel FC with SATA and ZFS is the ability to serve large files like HD videos, scientific datasets, medical images, and other large file heavy transaction applications.

Rocketman

[Rod Rod]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

I think the FC bus is only 400mb/s max.

Did you mean megabits (mb) or megabytes (mB)? There's an eightfold difference.

[centauratlas]

Originally Posted by centauratlas

Apple also updated the xserve BTO order page. Previously (at least as of 2 weeks ago) the largest memory size you could BTO was 16GB. They increased that to 32GB - at an extra cost of $23699.

p.s. I think this is an indication of what can be expected on the MacPro side with the additions of cores in the next update or two.

[guzhogi]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

I think the FC bus is only 400mb/s max.

The rumored Xserve RAID with 6 FC connections (per side) would not be saturated at such a low bandwidth. Low being a relative term of course

The main advantage to SAS is for transactions like a website, accounting database, sales site, iTunes server like stuff. The advantage to a (unreleased Apple) multi-channel FC with SATA and ZFS is the ability to serve large files like HD videos, scientific datasets, medical images, and other large file heavy transaction applications.

Rocketman

Actually, my question was, at the moment, the xServe RAID uses Ultra ATA/100. I want to know how much of an increase (if any) if it used SATA/SAS instead of UltraATA. I know SATA & SAS has a higher theoretical bandwidth, but what about in real life? Also, how much faster would having a 15,000 RPM drive be compared to a 10,000 and 7,200 RPM drive? Probably wouldn't make too much of a difference unless it was under a heavy load, but I'd like to see how they all compare in real life. Maybe copying a 50 GB file or something.

[Rod Rod]

Originally Posted by centauratlas

p.s. I think this is an indication of what can be expected on the MacPro side with the additions of cores in the next update or two.

The Xserve and the Mac Pro use the same processors, so the Mac Pro could very likely be upgraded to 32GB RAM as well. I'm sure there's more to it than that but we've seen Apple specify less RAM capacity than actual RAM capacity in the past. It wouldn't be anything new.

Of course, depending on what type of work you do, it may be more cost effective to buy multiple Mac Pros with less RAM rather than one Mac Pro with 32GB RAM.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by guzhogi

Because most people probably don't care about xServe RAIDs. If this was on the main page, a lot of people would be asking "Why is this on page 1?" Page 1=more interesting stories (speculation or not), page 2=mildly interesting, but still newsworthy.

I always though the Page 1 and Page 2 division is more based on credibility than public interest level. Stories from more trustworthy sources go to Page 1, while rumors from unproven or historically unreliable sources go to Page 2.

[Rocketman]

I believe the current RAID is 400 megabytes per second. My point is that upgrading to SAS or SATA/eSATA or 10k/15k would improve transaction speed but not throughput on a saturated bus.

IF the rumor is true of a 6FC interface for RAID the faster drives would be able to push more data per second, perhaps closer to 2 gigabytes per second.

Apple already has a seperate lane for each drive.

Rocketman

[guzhogi]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

I always though the Page 1 and Page 2 division is more based on credibility than public interest level. Stories from more trustworthy sources go to Page 1, while rumors from unproven or historically unreliable sources go to Page 2.

I remember an article on MR a while back that had an update something along the lines of "Moved from Page 2 to page 1 due to popular interest". I'm not saying credibility might pay a role, just saying interest definitely does. Maybe this is like newspapers: really important/interesting articles on front page while less interesting, though not necesarily more/less credible, are on the inner pages.

[hayduke]

Originally Posted by Rod Rod

Did you mean megabits (mb) or megabytes (mB)? There's an eightfold difference.

The difference could be even larger. Standard SI units use "m" for milli and "M" for mega. There is a HUGE difference between mb (milli-bits) and MB (mega bytes)!

[Zwhaler]

Originally Posted by centauratlas

p.s. I think this is an indication of what can be expected on the MacPro side with the additions of cores in the next update or two.

I agree. Some servers already use 64GB of memory, and while it costs you 50grand, it still is available, which means that not before long we will see it in our servers and computers. I'm just wondering when there will be a speed upgrade in the memory, not that we need it, but the Dell XPS uses 1066MHz RAM. That is really fast... much larger jump than we are used to.

And someone removed my post It was my thousandth one too lol(3rd one down)

[twoodcc]

Originally Posted by Zwhaler

And someone removed my post It was my thousandth one too lol(3rd one down)

they removed mine as well, but people can argue about page 1 or page 2?

anyways, glad to see the Xserve RAID get a boost. that's quite a bit of storage space......one day i'll have one in my house(that i don't have yet)

[guzhogi]

Originally Posted by Zwhaler

I agree. Some servers already use 64GB of memory, and while it costs you 50grand, it still is available, which means that not before long we will see it in our servers and computers. I'm just wondering when there will be a speed upgrade in the memory, not that we need it, but the Dell XPS uses 1066MHz RAM. That is really fast... much larger jump than we are used to.

And someone removed my post It was my thousandth one too lol(3rd one down)

I remember hearing that in the Power Mac G5s, the bus speed was 1/2 that of the processor. SO the 2.7 GHZ G5 would have a 1.35 GHZ bus.

Also, anyone know whether the Core 2 Duo & Xeons in the xSertve are true 64-bit procs or just 32-bit procs w/ 64-bit extensions? I know that in a proc, there are 2 busses: an address bus & a data bus. The address bus is used to address memory and devices while a data bus transfers the data. The latter of which makes a proc a "true" 64-bit proc if my understanding is right.