Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New port is fiber channel
- Thread starter crassusad44
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're absolutely right on that one. In fact, i have a very simple Raid1 setup in my little linux fileserver. A cheap controller and 2 HD's is all it took for that. It's not fast, but it definately is failsafe if one HD dies from age.
However, the little linux server is locked up in the closet, makeing to much noise in the workroom.
If on-board Fibre Channel doesn't cost too much, then fine. If it does, then IMO it's a terrible idea for the towers.
Bottom line is that Apple needs to keep the price points the same on the 970 towers. Even if the prices stay the same and we get dual 1.8s on the high end, we will -still- lag behind PCs in terms of price/performance. I don't expect that the Mac will ever reach parity with PCs in this matter, but it would be kinda nice to stay somewhere remotely in the same league.
Bottom line is that Apple needs to keep the price points the same on the 970 towers. Even if the prices stay the same and we get dual 1.8s on the high end, we will -still- lag behind PCs in terms of price/performance. I don't expect that the Mac will ever reach parity with PCs in this matter, but it would be kinda nice to stay somewhere remotely in the same league.
i want fibre in a Powerbook
It makes definately a lot of sense - use it as docking station link to a decent computer etc.
Now c'mon guys, you really amaze me. Of couse the fibre stuff doesn't go into a desktop by default. Not even apple would be crazy enough for that right now.
It goes into the Servers, where it makes perfect sense. Those Apple Raid cases belong in an apple raid rack, stacked upon each other, locked away in a sound proof room, thats all there is to that.
so the good news is: Powermacs may still get 5.1 surround sound
It makes definately a lot of sense - use it as docking station link to a decent computer etc.
Now c'mon guys, you really amaze me. Of couse the fibre stuff doesn't go into a desktop by default. Not even apple would be crazy enough for that right now.
It goes into the Servers, where it makes perfect sense. Those Apple Raid cases belong in an apple raid rack, stacked upon each other, locked away in a sound proof room, thats all there is to that.
so the good news is: Powermacs may still get 5.1 surround sound
From another video pro ...
I have to agree with those who think that Fibre Channel for a PowerMac (as the current range stands) is highly unlikely. However, it does make perfect sense for an XStation-type machine.
Think about it.
Apple is making some serious roads into high-end video at the moment. They have a great editor in Final Cut and probably the best compositing in the world with Shake. Right now, the hardware is really letting the software down. We've been crying out for a machine that can deal with the processing that uncompressed video and HD requires. And, of course, a large proportion of that requirement is in a RAID array. Apple would be stupid indeed not to help drive sales of their XRAID in this way for video pros.
I'm excited - it really does make sense.
I have to agree with those who think that Fibre Channel for a PowerMac (as the current range stands) is highly unlikely. However, it does make perfect sense for an XStation-type machine.
Think about it.
Apple is making some serious roads into high-end video at the moment. They have a great editor in Final Cut and probably the best compositing in the world with Shake. Right now, the hardware is really letting the software down. We've been crying out for a machine that can deal with the processing that uncompressed video and HD requires. And, of course, a large proportion of that requirement is in a RAID array. Apple would be stupid indeed not to help drive sales of their XRAID in this way for video pros.
I'm excited - it really does make sense.
Xserve motherboards?
NB: Apologies to anyone else who's written anything like this.
Whilst reading this article and the one before it mentioning the other ports, and alot of people thinking that this motherboard is for the Xserve/ Xstation, something struck me - what is the point of this processor hae built in 5.1 surround sound and USB 1.1 if its going to run as a server? I may be only a university student, but don't servers just sit in a corner and don't do actual work (not counting keeping the network running), so wouldn't the 5.1 surround sound be superfluous?
NB: Apologies to anyone else who's written anything like this.
Whilst reading this article and the one before it mentioning the other ports, and alot of people thinking that this motherboard is for the Xserve/ Xstation, something struck me - what is the point of this processor hae built in 5.1 surround sound and USB 1.1 if its going to run as a server? I may be only a university student, but don't servers just sit in a corner and don't do actual work (not counting keeping the network running), so wouldn't the 5.1 surround sound be superfluous?
Here's a question: is there actually a Fibre Channel chipset on the mainboard, or are they only seeing connectors? It's entirely possible that the mainboard has a pass-through for when a Fibre Channel card is actually installed.
MB never specifically said that there was an integrated Fibre Channel chipset, so there could be a daughter card. And yes, this could be a specific PowerMac/Xserve board for the people who choose Fibre Channel, rather than the one that everybody gets. It could even be just a test board that includes Fibre Channel as a matter of course.
MB never specifically said that there was an integrated Fibre Channel chipset, so there could be a daughter card. And yes, this could be a specific PowerMac/Xserve board for the people who choose Fibre Channel, rather than the one that everybody gets. It could even be just a test board that includes Fibre Channel as a matter of course.
what shape connectors?
I find it suspicious that the form factor of the "mystery" connectors isn't described at all.
Are they RCA jacks? Surely the MacB folks would recognize an RCA jack, and would have told us that there were "3+2" RCA jacks. (Makes component video+audio a good possibility.)
Are they mini-jacks (2.5mm headphone type)? Are they round? Are they square or rectangular.
Apple is using copper "Fibre Channel" in the Xserve RAID, HSSDC2 on the disk unit and SFP on the PCI card. These would be rectangular jacks, slightly larger than a USB port but without the off-center key that the USB ports use.
The statement that "one or two" are FC is strange - you have a pretty unique connector, and you should be able to say whether you have two matching connectors or a single one of that style.
Maybe if they were working from drawings or fuzzy photos this makes sense, but find it difficult to believe that they've spent any time with the actual board.
I'm leaning towards the theory that MacB is making all this up just to stir up a frenzy of page hits. I can't wait to see the stories that show up in the next few weeks leading up to 23 June!
I find it suspicious that the form factor of the "mystery" connectors isn't described at all.
Are they RCA jacks? Surely the MacB folks would recognize an RCA jack, and would have told us that there were "3+2" RCA jacks. (Makes component video+audio a good possibility.)
Are they mini-jacks (2.5mm headphone type)? Are they round? Are they square or rectangular.
Apple is using copper "Fibre Channel" in the Xserve RAID, HSSDC2 on the disk unit and SFP on the PCI card. These would be rectangular jacks, slightly larger than a USB port but without the off-center key that the USB ports use.
The statement that "one or two" are FC is strange - you have a pretty unique connector, and you should be able to say whether you have two matching connectors or a single one of that style.
Maybe if they were working from drawings or fuzzy photos this makes sense, but find it difficult to believe that they've spent any time with the actual board.
I'm leaning towards the theory that MacB is making all this up just to stir up a frenzy of page hits. I can't wait to see the stories that show up in the next few weeks leading up to 23 June!
Re: Why RAID on a desktop?
while I agree with pretty much everything else you said, I think it'll be much, much longer than 20 years before the above is true. 64 bits didn't just double address space, it squared it - 64 bits can address 4 billion times the 4 gigabytes that 32 bits addresses, or 16 billion gigabytes of virtual memory per process. That's a lot more dramatic than going from 640k to two gigabytes.
while I agree with pretty much everything else you said, I think it'll be much, much longer than 20 years before the above is true. 64 bits didn't just double address space, it squared it - 64 bits can address 4 billion times the 4 gigabytes that 32 bits addresses, or 16 billion gigabytes of virtual memory per process. That's a lot more dramatic than going from 640k to two gigabytes.
If this is true (and thats a pretty big if in my mind still) it is for very high end machines, as the ability to have a software based RAID drive setup is already built into OS X. The FC PCI card is like $500 bucks! Who wants to add that to the cost of their computer if they won't be using it? If it was a matter of less than $100 I wouldn't mind so much, but this seems like an awful lot of bandwidth to put in a computer that may end up connecting to the internet over a dial-up modem if this is the new power mac.
This is off-topic, I guess, but I want you to know that your experience is not typical. In years past I managed labs full of SGI gear with terabytes of FC storage, and the only time we experienced unexpected LIPs were when there was actually a hardware failure happening.
And as for GBIC's... heck, they're completely interchangeable. They're just electro-optical transceivers.
In that case, could I send you a box of Agilent GBICs in trade for QLogic or IBM GBICs? (about 20 of them)
I've pulled all the Agilent ones out of my equipment and replaced them - too many weird errors with the Agilent transceivers.
Re: Re: Why RAID on a desktop?
So squaring the amount of necessary RAM in thirty years is just about right. At least so far. Now, whether that will still hold true in another 30 years is another question. Hell, we're already simulating some computational chemistry and bioinformatics jobs at the atomic level. How much more data can we stuff into those simulations?
We'll all be using more than 32 bits of RAM sometime between now and 2030. The question is, how much more?
(About that same time, we'll have to deal with the Y2K+38 problem anyway.)
Perspective time. 640 KB squared is 400 GB. Now, 400 GB is a lot of RAM, but I've seen many computer systems with more. (Not desktops, obviously. Big SGI Origins.)
So squaring the amount of necessary RAM in thirty years is just about right. At least so far. Now, whether that will still hold true in another 30 years is another question. Hell, we're already simulating some computational chemistry and bioinformatics jobs at the atomic level. How much more data can we stuff into those simulations?
We'll all be using more than 32 bits of RAM sometime between now and 2030. The question is, how much more?
(About that same time, we'll have to deal with the Y2K+38 problem anyway.)
Sure. I've never noticed a problem with any GBIC. Sometimes they fail, sure, and sometimes other problems occur. But as for "weird errors?" Never.
Re: Sound very logical!
Um... no. There zero reason to use a hardware RAID card in a Power Mac, ATTO or otherwise. If you're doing video editing, you should be using software RAID-0. Fibre channel disk enclosures with FC-ATA bridges only are not exactly cheap, but they're widely available. If you want to spend more and buy more reliability, you can use native FC drives.
So: Power Mac, PCI FC card, external FC-ATA or FC-FC array. Software disk striping through Disk Utility. Poof. Done.
In a perfect world, you'd have efficient software RAID-3, but Disk Utility currently doesn't support that. If you want to rah-rah Apple for something, cheer for software RAID-3, not for hardware FCAL support.
Originally posted by SunRiser
Now the rumors parts: the PPC 970 should make look the Dual 1.4 like a calculator and now the motherboard should have a FB connector in it... See the link?
Um... no. There zero reason to use a hardware RAID card in a Power Mac, ATTO or otherwise. If you're doing video editing, you should be using software RAID-0. Fibre channel disk enclosures with FC-ATA bridges only are not exactly cheap, but they're widely available. If you want to spend more and buy more reliability, you can use native FC drives.
So: Power Mac, PCI FC card, external FC-ATA or FC-FC array. Software disk striping through Disk Utility. Poof. Done.
In a perfect world, you'd have efficient software RAID-3, but Disk Utility currently doesn't support that. If you want to rah-rah Apple for something, cheer for software RAID-3, not for hardware FCAL support.
Having a RAID doesn't mean your material is backed up. That is only if you stripe your setup as mirrored.
And if you want a raid, slap 2 extra atas in your mac, format them as a raid (mirrored if you like) and go to town. Much better performance for video editing, etc.
And if you want a raid, slap 2 extra atas in your mac, format them as a raid (mirrored if you like) and go to town. Much better performance for video editing, etc.
A clarification.
I know I'm probably being an anal-retentive nit-picker, but it doesn't make any sense to say "stripe your setup as mirrored." Striping and mirroring are two different things. Also, if you mirror two drives, your performance will not go up, and will almost certainly go down slightly.
Striping data across disks means each disk gets a bit of the data. Imagine a file split up into four chunks, A-D, and written on to four disks, 1-4. Since all four writes can happen simultaneously (more or less), you get four times the performance as you would if you wrote the file in one chunk to one disk. That's striping. Of course, if any disk fails, you lose all your data, because B, C, and D are useless without A.
Mirroring, on the other hand, is writing the same file or chunk-of-file to more than one disk at the same time. That way if one disk fails, you can still get to your data by reading the other disk. However, since you're writing the same data twice (or more often), your computer has to do more work. How much more depends on how your disks are arranged. If you're mirroring across disk controllers and busses as well as drives, then you probably won't notice a performance dip when you mirror. But if you're mirroring across two drives on the same controller and bus (two daisy-chained firewires, for example), be prepared to deal with a performance hit.
Striping and mirroring are often used together. You can stripe across mirrors or you can mirror stripes. They're both pretty much the same; the difference comes up when it's time to rebuild a mirror set. Stripe-unit mirror sets rebuild faster.
So: striping = better performance, but lowered reliability. Mirroring = the same (or slightly lowered) performance, but better reliability. A combination of the two can give you both good performance and good reliability, but you need a minimum of four drives for that.
There are ways to improve the reliability of a stripe set, by using parity data calculations to increase the number of disks by one (rather than by doubling them), but those aren't supported by Disk Utility at this time. When you hear about RAID-3 and RAID-5, that's what they're talking about. (There's a RAID-4, but nobody uses it.)
Just a clarification.
Here is the quote from Macbidouile:
"J'aurais du vous indiquer, les benchmarks de bryce ... mais sur un beta de la version suivante de bryce, qui doit arriver en juillet ou août de cette année. La version 6 supportera des configurations multi-processeurs....La version beta de Bryce 6 est disponible sur quelques sites P2P, notablement hotline. Le vrai fichier est Corel Bryce 6 Beta.sit, et il pese a 91.2 MO. "
It clearly indicates that Bryce 6 was being tested as a beta. The type and size of file were given and there is no question that a beta version could have been being tested and that after some reflection, Corel decided to pull the plug on it. I don't think this invalidates MB's rumours carte blanche at all. Lionel, from MB is both sincere and adamant that the 970 will be sooner than later. If you have followed their announcements you will know that he is clearly hoping it will be announced in June, possibly coming out in a limited form anytime August through September and the inference is that it will appear across the line of Apple product by next year. I happen to think he is close to the mark.
This is something Apple has done for awhile. How about gigabit ethernet a few years ago when it was much more expensive? What about dvd-r burners when the purchaser doesn't want it on a highend system?
Apple does this to add more perceived value to specific price points and puts the marketing spin on it. It's nothing new.
I only saw one person mention this in the thread and it looked like everyone just blew past it and that is that it's likely fibre for the latest incarnation of firewire. It all makes perfect sense. The specs for it point this all out and Apple is going to be one vendor who will push this as it fits perfectly into their highend line of systems.
Remember firewire really isn't about the physical media but the protocol.
Remember firewire really isn't about the physical media but the protocol.
Re: Rog's post
Yep. I saw the posts that say that Corel is discontinuing development of Bryce for the Mac too. Now, I'm not saying that the MacBidouille rumours are fact. But I do think they could be true anyways. The key words here are "discontinuing developement". Corel says it will continue providing support for Bryce 5 Mac, and will not release any new versions of Bryce for the Mac. It does not say that they never started working on Bryce 6 for Mac. The MacBidouille benchmarks article talks about a beta of Bryce 6.
Companies do occasionally abandon a projet under development. To those familiar with Canadian history, remember the Avro Arrow (CF-105)? To those that aren't, it was a twin-engine jet interceptor built by Avro Canada in the late 50's for the Canadian Air Force, with a top speed of Mach 2.5. Yup, you read right, Mach 2.5 in the late 50's. 5 working prototypes were built. Just before actual production started, the project was scrapped, and the prototypes and all related documentation were destroyed.
Yep. I saw the posts that say that Corel is discontinuing development of Bryce for the Mac too. Now, I'm not saying that the MacBidouille rumours are fact. But I do think they could be true anyways. The key words here are "discontinuing developement". Corel says it will continue providing support for Bryce 5 Mac, and will not release any new versions of Bryce for the Mac. It does not say that they never started working on Bryce 6 for Mac. The MacBidouille benchmarks article talks about a beta of Bryce 6.
Companies do occasionally abandon a projet under development. To those familiar with Canadian history, remember the Avro Arrow (CF-105)? To those that aren't, it was a twin-engine jet interceptor built by Avro Canada in the late 50's for the Canadian Air Force, with a top speed of Mach 2.5. Yup, you read right, Mach 2.5 in the late 50's. 5 working prototypes were built. Just before actual production started, the project was scrapped, and the prototypes and all related documentation were destroyed.
Yeah, okay. I don't know anything about it. The 10 years I've been working with it professionally are all just a hallucination. The production beta-testing I did on EMC's FC-AL driver for Solaris back in '96 was a hallucination. The fact that I use fibre channel professionally on a daily basis is just a hallucination.
By the way, you might want to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. I never said that FC wasn't in common use. I said it was still buggy. And for external FC-AL (not the internal FC-AL which is common on high end workstation and server gear, and which is not germaine to this conversation, because this conversation is dealing with EXTERNAL FC-AL connectors), it still is.
But hell, don't believe me. Go read through SunSolve's bug database for the FC-AL drivers. You *do* have a SunSolve account, don't you?
Yes, that fits my definition of "short-haul". My definition of "long-haul" spans oceans and continents.
that's really, really, amazing. I completely slept through the part where I went off on a tirade about the performance and feature-set of FC, necessitating your rah-rah-ing of both.
If you insist on arguing (particularly when you're not in posession of facts that would justify a personal attack on my knowledge and background ), learn how to argue effectively. Here's a free basic skill: Stick to the facts, avoid logical fallacies, and address only those points your opponent has raised.
You fail on all three criteria.
HTH. HAND.
My experience as described in the bit you quote was with Sun gear. How, exactly, does an argument from SGI gear make that expereince atypical? In years past I managed the systems for the nation's largest nuclear power company, with terabytes of FC storage, and we experienced unexpected LIPs quite regularly, particularly when the server was a Sun, and the storage was non-Sun (typically, but not always, EMC).
And as for the GBICs, they're interghangeable because there's a hardware design standard. As I'm sure you're well aware, individual manufacturers do not hew strictly to said standard. Some systems are more sensitive than others to variations from the standard. Suns are, again, notorious for this. Sun GBICs work fine. Non-Sun GBICs are a crapshoot. And certain vendors (e.g., EMC) have a history of requiring that their equipment use their GBICs on both ends of the loop before the system will qualify for support (In fairness, I do believe EMC has stopped this nonsense, but it used to be the case).
Human translation of MacBidouille article.
Just as an FYI, this is a human translation of the MacBidouille article by your's truly. I speak French fluently, so the wording is an exact English equivalent as far as meaning is concerned.
"We have received information on some of the mysterious external connectors on the PPC 970 motherboard. One of them (and probably 2) is a Fibre-channel connector to connect, for example, an XServe RAID."
Just as an FYI, this is a human translation of the MacBidouille article by your's truly. I speak French fluently, so the wording is an exact English equivalent as far as meaning is concerned.
"We have received information on some of the mysterious external connectors on the PPC 970 motherboard. One of them (and probably 2) is a Fibre-channel connector to connect, for example, an XServe RAID."