Active Storage Prepping Replacement for Apple's Xserve?

[backdraft]

HP? I'll take real server iron!

Sun Fire X4170 M2 Tech Spec's

Sun Fire X4170 M2 Pricing


Great paired up with this:

Sun ZFS Storage 7120

HP DL360 - 1U, 192 GiB RAM, 2 PCIe slots, 2 GbE, 2 sockets (up to 12 cores), 8 internal disks
HP DL380 - 2U, 192 GiB RAM, 6 PCIe slots, 2 GbE, 2 sockets (up to 12 cores), 16 internal disks
HP DL580 - 4U, 1024 GiB RAM, 11 PCIe slots, 4 GbE, 4 sockets (up to 32 cores), 8 internal disks
HP DL980 - 8U, 2048 GiB RAM, 16 PCIe slots, 4 GbE, 8 sockets (up to 64 cores), 8 internal disks

look at http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/proliant/proliant-dl.html


Blades are a whole other ballgame, they run from less than a 1U to 2U and 4U expansion. Blades are also typically more expensive to purchase than the equivalent 1U/2U box - a blade usually doesn't make sense until you factor in the cost of floor space, air conditioning, support, ....

look at http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF02d/3709945-3709945-3328410.html

 

[rumornot]

So whose hardware in Apple NC Data Center?

IBM and Sun/Oracle

do you seriously think Apple runs their company and finances on the kiddie database they sell?

Apple's hardware and software is not enterprise grade and they use other companies who make better products in that space to fulfill their own needs. Perfect example of this is mobileme. For the email servers they use Sun (now Oracle) message servers even though Apple has their own mail server in OS X server. Just look at the raw header from any MobileMe email you've received or sent, and you will see this line "(Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21
2010)) with ESMTPSA"

Apple uses other companies hardware and software in their data centers because Apple is good at making phones, mp3 players, laptops, tablets, and desktop computers.

They do not make great enterprise servers and storage solutions (and they don't need to since they can just buy from another company what they need).

Thanks for your replies, guys! I guess Apple can't be expected to make everything by itself!

 

[AidenShaw]

You call 144 GiB "big iron"

HP? I'll take real server iron!

Sun Fire X4170 M2 Tech Spec's

Sun Fire X4170 M2 Pricing

Fail. The Sun X4170 M2 is pretty much a clone of an HP DL360 G7 except that

• The HP goes to 6 core and 3.06 GHz CPUs, the Sun stops at 4 core and 2.93 GHz
• The HP supports 192 GiB of RAM, max for Sun is 144 GiB
• The Sun has 4 GbE builtin, instead of 2

All of the x64 servers are built from the same parts bin, there's not much differentiation in the 1U/2U space.

 

[backdraft]

Same memory type, same number of DIMM's so I'm not sure about the discrepancy in the amount of RAM. The Sun has a 6 core per CPU option.

Sun hardware has a better build quality, my experience with HP has been a bit shakey. I'll take Solaris over HP-UX/Tru64 any day of the week.

Fail. The Sun X4170 M2 is pretty much a clone of an HP DL360 G7 except that

• The HP goes to 6 core and 3.06 GHz CPUs, the Sun stops at 4 core and 2.93 GHz
• The HP supports 192 GiB of RAM, max for Sun is 144 GiB
• The Sun has 4 GbE builtin, instead of 2

All of the x64 servers are built from the same parts bin, there's not much differentiation in the 1U/2U space.

 

[backdraft]

Makes you wonder why Apple didn't buy Sun when they had the chance!

Apple is running a whole lot of Sun hardware as a large portion of their servers have been running Solaris for a long time. Yes they do run OS X server but not as much as they run Solaris and other forms of Unix.

 

[macsmurf]

Makes you wonder why Apple didn't buy Sun when they had the chance!

Because they have no credibility in the enterprise market and the second they bought Sun the customers would be running for the hills?

(And because they don't really care about this market )

 

[azentropy]

Because they have no credibility in the enterprise market and the second they bought Sun the customers would be running for the hills?

(And because they don't really care about this market )

Well, they are running for the hills anyway because Oracle bought them!

 

[BTW]

I've been saying for years Apple should OEM there OSX Server offering. Finally it appears they have done it. The question is: Does it matter now?

 

[AidenShaw]

The question is: Does it matter now?

Probably not - whatever trust that IT had with Apple has evaporated. Active may sell a few systems to people to help with the transition - but I'd bet that most organizations have already started transition planning, and this announcement is too little, too late.

If Apple had announced a partnership with a tier 1 vendor *when* they axed the Xserver, it might have worked. Some last minute thing with a tiny startup - not likely.

 

[rstansby]

I think it will be "cloud based" server hosting, so that the user doesn't need to own the hardware. I think the curtain will be lifted to reveal something that isn't hardware at all.

That's my guess.

 

[drsmithy]

look at http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/pscmisc/vac/us/en/sm/proliant/proliant-dl.html

I'm well aware of the spec differences between various 1U and 2U boxes. I spend multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on servers.

Perhaps my question would be better phrased as: in a typical (non-trivial) virtualisation scenario, what does a 2U server give you that 1Us or blades do not ? Local disks are irrelevant because you'll be using a SAN. Lots of expansion slots are irrelevant because 2-4x1GbE onboard + 2x10Gb FCoE or 2x4Gb FC (a single slot) gives you all the connectivity you'll need. 1U and 2U boxes (and most blades, these days) nearly always have identical CPU and RAM capacities (usually 1U and 2U servers have essentially identical motherboards, just in difference chassis).

Bumping up to a 4U or 8U usually gives some more CPU sockets and/or RAM slots, but at dramatically higher cost (and increase of the too-many-eggs factor). You're nearly always better off getting a pair of dual-socket machines than a single quad-socket machine (unless you have a specific need for a quad-socket machine, which with todays 6+ core CPUs is a practically nonexistent corner case).

Blades are a whole other ballgame, they run from less than a 1U to 2U and 4U expansion. Blades are also typically more expensive to purchase than the equivalent 1U/2U box - a blade usually doesn't make sense until you factor in the cost of floor space, air conditioning, support, ....

Blades generally break-even at about half a chassis full. Though that's just in raw capital costs - when you take into account the manageability and efficiency advantages, plus future expansion, it's often sooner.

A 2u server will give you 16 internal hard drives. Going external will cost you $2000 or more for the cage plus drives and raid controller

If you're running any sort of non-trivial virtualisation environment, you have at least two servers and a SAN (and ideally you're booting from the SAN).

 

[Schizoid]

So anyway, back to the Active Storage solution, now only 4 hours away:

1) Some Mac Minis welded together
2) A Mac Pro taken out of the box, the riser card turned 90º and placed in 4U
3) Linux server solution
4) Your standard box running OS X Virtually...

any other possibilities?

 

[fluffels]

Some last minute thing with a tiny startup - not likely.

Required response: lol.

Active Storage are a successful player in fast fibre RAID storage, backed by the expertise that brought the Xserve RAID to us, and have been for some time. They're not some 'tiny startup'. In fact, they're an established company selling some of the best kit in their market, with big financial backing from Intel.

So anyway, back to the Active Storage solution, now only 4 hours away:

1) Some Mac Minis welded together
2) A Mac Pro taken out of the box, the riser card turned 90º and placed in 4U
3) Linux server solution
4) Your standard box running OS X Virtually...

any other possibilities?

Active Storage are a media orientated company. It'll be something based on massive metadata IO, which pulls 1 & 4 out the running.

I'm thinking the two possibilities are:
Likely: a Linux based MDC solution for Xsan, perhaps with embedded FC and Innerpool
Unlikely: a Mac based system with redundant PSUs etc to replace the Xserve (and thus keep the ability to use fibre), built à la ModBook. Possibly even with Apple's blessing.

 

[alent1234]

I'm well aware of the spec differences between various 1U and 2U boxes. I spend multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on servers.

Perhaps my question would be better phrased as: in a typical (non-trivial) virtualisation scenario, what does a 2U server give you that 1Us or blades do not ? Local disks are irrelevant because you'll be using a SAN. Lots of expansion slots are irrelevant because 2-4x1GbE onboard + 2x10Gb FCoE or 2x4Gb FC (a single slot) gives you all the connectivity you'll need. 1U and 2U boxes (and most blades, these days) nearly always have identical CPU and RAM capacities (usually 1U and 2U servers have essentially identical motherboards, just in difference chassis).

Bumping up to a 4U or 8U usually gives some more CPU sockets and/or RAM slots, but at dramatically higher cost (and increase of the too-many-eggs factor). You're nearly always better off getting a pair of dual-socket machines than a single quad-socket machine (unless you have a specific need for a quad-socket machine, which with todays 6+ core CPUs is a practically nonexistent corner case).



Blades generally break-even at about half a chassis full. Though that's just in raw capital costs - when you take into account the manageability and efficiency advantages, plus future expansion, it's often sooner.



If you're running any sort of non-trivial virtualisation environment, you have at least two servers and a SAN (and ideally you're booting from the SAN).

a 2U will also give you more expansion slots so you can do multiple HBA's, 10gig-e card

 

[Schizoid]

Active Storage are a media orientated company. It'll be something based on massive metadata IO, which pulls 1 & 4 out the running.

I'm thinking the two possibilities are:
Likely: a Linux based MDC solution for Xsan, perhaps with embedded FC and Innerpool
Unlikely: a Mac based system with redundant PSUs etc to replace the Xserve (and thus keep the ability to use fibre), built à la ModBook. Possibly even with Apple's blessing.

Agreed, It's looking more and more likely that this is a MDC solution that negates the needs for Mac Pros in your rack, would be nice to have something running Mac OS X Server though, but Apple won't be allowing that anytime soon...

 

[daveschroeder]

Guys, as I said a few pages back, this is nothing more than an Xsan server replacement.

 

[Dr.Pants]

Active Storage are a media orientated company. It'll be something based on massive metadata IO, which pulls 1 & 4 out the running.

I'm thinking the two possibilities are:
Likely: a Linux based MDC solution for Xsan, perhaps with embedded FC and Innerpool
Unlikely: a Mac based system with redundant PSUs etc to replace the Xserve (and thus keep the ability to use fibre), built à la ModBook. Possibly even with Apple's blessing.

Active Storage employee spotted.

 

[daveschroeder]

Active Storage employee spotted.

Nope. Just a person who can use logic. Like anyone who was sensible did back when this "rumor" started.

There was never going to be Mac OS X Server on any magical third party hardware.

Apple is slowly exiting the server/pro space, and increasing its focus on the consumer marketplace.

The NC datacenter is mostly Sun, IBM, and other similar big iron.

 

[fluffels]

Active Storage customer spotted.

Fixed that for you.

 

[daveschroeder]

Fixed that for you.

And you knew exactly what this would be, like any other sensible person. The amount of wishful thinking and ridiculous assertions in this thread was utterly amazing.

 

[thejoecarroll]

So what was the announcement?

Joined the conference call too late to catch exactly what the announcement was. Apparently involves something called "ActiveStand"... Seems like it may be a disappointment for those of us who were hoping for some sort of Apple-sanctioned alternative to the XServe. Did anyone else here join the call early enough to post a summary here?

 

[fluffels]

And you knew exactly what this would be, like any other sensible person. The amount of wishful thinking and ridiculous assertions in this thread was utterly amazing.

Exactly.

If someone wants to run an Xsan installation in a VM and try and put millions of IO metadata operations through it, that's fine by me. It'll be hell for them, however!

I'm liking what I'm hearing on the conference call. A simple replacement MDC system is a good idea.

"Active SAN"

A 1U Nehalem based server running a customised version of Linux and StorNext. Active SAN & its admin application integrates LOM, redundant power etc, along with extended statistics not previously easily available from Xsan.

Also bringing the further functionality that StorNext has, it extends the possibilities of Xsan. InnerPool, Active Storage’s innovative method for storing meta data on the Fibre Channel card, is available as part of Active SAN.

Joined the conference call too late to catch exactly what the announcement was. Apparently involves something called "ActiveStand"... Seems like it may be a disappointment for those of us who were hoping for some sort of Apple-sanctioned alternative to the XServe. Did anyone else here join the call early enough to post a summary here?

Active SAN. It's a replacement for the Xserve for the many many companies that use them as Xsan MDCs, which is exactly what I was reckoning.

 

[i_roma]

Marketing 101

Sigh ....

 

[letterexchange]

Active's primary customers for their RAIDs are enterprise and media customers using them as alternative storage for Apple's Xsan which itself is just licensed StorNext software from Quantum.

This is just going to be a rackmount Linux server running StorNext which Apple Xsan clients can connect to.

That was me all the way back on page 1 of the comments. I know it makes me a jerk to enjoy all the inane drivel of people that have bought a Mac laptop thinking they know about anything in this space.

But I'm ok with that.

You should use this as a life lesson. Just because there is the slightest sliver of POSSIBILITY should not make you look past what is LIKELY.

But Active got their circus like buzz and Macrumors kept you all on the site looking at ads. Everybody wins.

 

[fluffels]

Here's a video of the ActiveSAN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9QO6g48eg

Sigh ....

Why? They didn't mislead anyone. They're bringing a replacement for the Xserve as an Xsan MDC.