Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is creepy!!

If I were Steve Jobs......and I didn't know IBM was releasing this machine....they are a competitor. This just gave Apple a reason to port OSX to Intel.

Or Apple knows and IBM ordering is going to allow the option of OS Server on it...which would be sweet for Apple and fair.

Or OSX will be shipping with the machine.

The posts I read did not seem to lock the OS version of Linux...I also read AIX.....which is it??

This will either start a war with IBM and Apple or a lovely marriage will get better.

Either way, I see Apple being highly competitive.......and well positioned....(Hello AMD, can we buy some chips from you)

This just leaves everything way up in the air right now....Either everyone is pissed or everyone is very happy.....
 
At some point Apple and IBM are going to be competing for the same server market, as Apple pushes into academia and enterprise. I wonder how happy Big Blue will be, or whether there aren't already some sort of contractual limitations on future Apple server hardware that IBM demanded in exchange for pulling Job's cojones out of the fire with the 970.
 
Originally posted by Tulse
At some point Apple and IBM are going to be competing for the same server market, as Apple pushes into academia and enterprise. I wonder how happy Big Blue will be, or whether there aren't already some sort of contractual limitations on future Apple server hardware that IBM demanded in exchange for pulling Job's cojones out of the fire with the 970.
By offering Linux as opposed to OS X, the IBM servers will appeal to a different market than Apple. Apple's advantage and distinction in the server field has been the OS. It's Apple who should be more concerned. It's a win-win situation for IBM (yes I realize the payoff is greater for IBM branded servers).
 
Originally posted by dongmin
By offering Linux as opposed to OS X, the IBM servers will appeal to a different market than Apple. Apple's advantage and distinction in the server field has been the OS. It's Apple who should be more concerned. It's a win-win situation for IBM (yes I realize the payoff is greater for IBM branded servers).

Correct me if I am wrong but Linux eliminates Altivec from the scene?

The 7U IBM system does have double the "processor density" as the G4 Xserve, it also has not much more than 1.1 times the throughput as 7U of dual 2Ghz G5 Xserves would have with 1ghz bus and 8gb of DDR 400 RAM and full Altivec implementation would have.

If you look at the supercomputer list that Apple is #3 on right now the power to price and power density of alot of those systems is unimpressive. They are just alot of money thrown at the problem to get bigger compute power with "crippled" OS's and processors and form factors. Example IBM 2x1.6Ghz G5 blade $2700 (available 3-31-04) Apple 2x2Ghz G5 (faster bus and memory) $2999 (Available 10-1-03).

If Apple were to make a "blade server" which is widely rumored to be what it's 3U box is, it might just rock exceptionally hard. (2x2Ghz per blade) $2999 (available 2-1-04 assumed), 7 blades per 3U box. This is not an announced product and what if it is released at 2.5 Ghz or something?

Furthermore IBM will be shipping their 970 stuff in late 1Q 2004 (ie 3-31-04 and Apple had a 970 supercomputer installed and running on Oct 1, 2003 (a 6month dfference).

So Apple is 6 months faster on time to market than "Big Blue".

Rocketman
 
Originally posted by Rocketman
...If you look at the supercomputer list that Apple is #3 on right now the power to price and power density of alot of those systems is unimpressive. They are just alot of money thrown at the problem to get bigger compute power with "crippled" OS's and processors and form factors. Example IBM 2x1.6Ghz G5 blade $2700 (available 3-31-04) Apple 2x2Ghz G5 (faster bus and memory) $2999 (Available 10-1-03)...
The blade has a higher unit density for racks than the PowerMacs, you can stuff in a lot more blade enclosures in the same space as a rack of PowerMacs.

Sure the CPUs aren't clocked as high as the PowerMac, but there is always premium on rack space, cooling capacity, available primary/back-up power supply, network bandwidth. And the upgrade of processing power in a rack may means a lot of dollars in non-computing power upgrades.
 
Originally posted by Rocketman
Correct me if I am wrong but Linux eliminates Altivec from the scene?

I am correcting you, :D No, It does not eliminate it from the scene.

Actually, Motorola has already been releasing Altivec optimized code for Linux. I don't see why IBM would be any different, especially when it comes to their own hardware.

Regards
 
Re: This is creepy!!

Originally posted by usingmac
If I were Steve Jobs......and I didn't know IBM was releasing this machine....

Sorry, run that by me again: Jobs couldn't guess that IBM might base a machine on a processor they themselves designed and currently manufacture?

Not to mention the numerous times they have said they will produce such a server.....:rolleyes:
 
The hardware is largely irrelevant.

IBM are selling the Blades to people who want IBM service, DB2, Websphere and whatever IBM products they need for their business.

In that respect IBM are really competing with themselves and the 970 Blades have to offer compelling reasons over x86 Blades which I'm sure they do.

Apple have a completely different package for the enterprise and nowhere near the service level.

At some point IBM and Apple may come up across each other but it's too early for that now. That'll change as Apple expands it's Enterprise level services and attracts more enterprise level apps like Oracle but I doubt you'll see OSX Server on an IBM Blade until you see IBM porting it's applications to OSX. And Jobs allows licensing to 3rd Parties. The current OSX licence does not allow it to be ran on non-Apple hardware.
 
Originally posted by singletrack
The hardware is largely irrelevant.

IBM are selling the Blades to people who want IBM service, DB2, Websphere and whatever IBM products they need for their business.

In that respect IBM are really competing with themselves and the 970 Blades have to offer compelling reasons over x86 Blades which I'm sure they do.

Apple have a completely different package for the enterprise and nowhere near the service level.

At some point IBM and Apple may come up across each other but it's too early for that now. That'll change as Apple expands it's Enterprise level services and attracts more enterprise level apps like Oracle but I doubt you'll see OSX Server on an IBM Blade until you see IBM porting it's applications to OSX. And Jobs allows licensing to 3rd Parties. The current OSX licence does not allow it to be ran on non-Apple hardware.

Agreed. I guess quite a few of major companies are simply IBM shops. They will only buy hardware and software from IBM due to the Service Level Agreements which can be bought with it. Apple will never be able to compete with IBM in this market. I certainly can see Apple to be successful in research/university markets with the Xserve. And not to forget small and medium sized enterprises who want a reliable server environment with simple administration/configuration management.
 
Originally posted by G5orbust Anyone notice that IBM crippled the main feature of the Apple G5:

8 GB of Dual Channel DDR400

And I quote:

"The JS20 blade blades contain four DIMM sockets. A maximum of 4 GB of system memory is supported by adding a 1GB PC2700 CL2.5 ECC DDR SDRAM DIMM in each of the 4 DIMM sockets.
I can't see what the problem is. IBM has a different memory controller than Apple have, so why should they have the same characteristics? There are not lot of room in a blade module, so 8 RAM sockets would probably take too much space, and generate too much heat. The system controller in the blade modules might have the same feature that the one in the Power Mac have, and that is that they do support 2 GB modules when they are available. to a total of 8 GB in the blade and 16 GB in the Power Mac G5.
 
Re: What is cooking..

Originally posted by matthew24
I have always wondered if IBM would allow Apple to use PowerPC 'without' restrictions (or without a counter offering). IBM and Apple are still competitors but they share the same enemy....
IBM has been VERY good for the last 8 years or so. Before then, they wanted to have IBM everywhere - IBM hardware with IBM software, and so on (as much as they could force it to be anyway).

Then each IBM division was told to act independently. Make their product to work with competitors if they had a better system. IBM divisions improved as they didn't prop each other up. IBM still acts that way largely, but also can sell "the entire solution" for people who just want IBM.

I hoped Apple would go that way once!
 
Odd - 'cuz IBM sells 8 GiB Xeon blades...

Originally posted by G5orbust
Anyone notice that IBM crippled the main feature of the Apple G5:

8 GB of Dual Channel DDR400

And I quote:

"The JS20 blade blades contain four DIMM sockets. A maximum of 4 GB of system memory ...

You can put 8 GiB of RAM in an IBM HS20 dual Xeon blade...:

• Up to two Intel® XeonTM processors at up to 3.2GHz with 533MHz front-side bus speed, one standard
• 512MB standard/8GB max PC2100 ECC DDR ChipkillTM SDRAM


I'd guess it's no so much "crippled" as that problem that there's only enough room in a 1/2 U blade for 4 DIMM slots, and 2 GiB (or larger) DDR400 DIMMs aren't readily available yet.

You'll see 2 GiB DIMMs, and 8 GiB JS20 blade, I'll bet. (But of course, those 2 GiB DIMMs will let you put 16 GiB of RAM in a G5! ;) )
 
Quoted: Apple will release Xserve G5 when is passes quality control (can't be too long now).

My question: Apple has quality control? When did THAT happen? I thought Steve had jettisoned it when he took over.

(Funny for a guy who's supposed to be a perfectionist to release the original iBook with that horrible video-out port, OS X with, well, you know, not to mention the latest rash of hardware failures.)

Hate to say it, but Apple's current quality control is making Microsoft look almost average.
 
Apple cannot be held completely responsible for hardware issues due to other manufacturers who actually make the parts they use. They can't open every box and play with each computer to make sure they are perfect before shipping them to your door.
 
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Apple cannot be held completely responsible for hardware issues due to other manufacturers who actually make the parts they use. They can't open every box and play with each computer to make sure they are perfect before shipping them to your door.

Apple is completely responsible to the purchaser, because Apple is the "manufacturer". On the same token the sub contractor that apple uses to assemble is responsible to Apple. Quality control maybe lacking. But it is still possible that "lemon" get past QC.
 
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Apple cannot be held completely responsible for hardware issues due to other manufacturers who actually make the parts they use. They can't open every box and play with each computer to make sure they are perfect before shipping them to your door.
Funny, that's what I thought the high (often 50%) premium over the equiv. Dell hardware was supposed to be getting us, from the message-board proclaimed "BMW of computer manufacturers." This is the whole point of going to a system manufacturer, rather than trying to build your own box out of parts, that they do take responsibility (at a price) for the completeness and quality of the finished product, including all subassemblies.

-Richard
 
If Apple made the LCD screens, HDs, RAM, processors, etc, I would agree, but how is Apple to know that the plant that is making the LCDs let out a batch of defective screens? As I said earlier, Steve doesn't sit down at the warehouse and go through every computer that is ordered to see if it is working perfectly and that is about the only way to truly be "100% quality control".
 
Originally posted by Rocketman
If you look at the supercomputer list that Apple is #3 on right now the power to price and power density of alot of those systems is unimpressive. They are just alot of money thrown at the problem to get bigger compute power with "crippled" OS's and processors and form factors. Example IBM 2x1.6Ghz G5 blade $2700 (available 3-31-04) Apple 2x2Ghz G5 (faster bus and memory) $2999 (Available 10-1-03).
First, you forgot the extra price for the case for the blades, which would drive that cost up more. Then again, you forgot the higher QA levels, higher reliability levels, massive cooling and power service systems, etc, that are part and parcel of a blade system. There's a reason that anyone with MPP needs likes blades. How much room did it take to store that "#3 supercomputer"? How much bizarreness in the cooling system?
If Apple were to make a "blade server" which is widely rumored to be what it's 3U box is, it might just rock exceptionally hard. (2x2Ghz per blade) $2999 (available 2-1-04 assumed), 7 blades per 3U box. This is not an announced product and what if it is released at 2.5 Ghz or something?
Er, WTF? I've never seen anyone fit 7 blades into a 3U box. A 3U box is approximately 5" tall. That would involve tossing a dual G5 into a box about 5" tall by 3.5" wide -- a pretty unusual form-factor. I would be very surprised if Apple did anything other than the traditional self-contained servers, at least for a while. Especially considering how long its taking them to get the basic 1U Xserve out the door... Besides, they'd have to reinvent so much to do this, instead of just leveraging existing standards like IBM did ("Install these blades in a new BladeCenter or upgrade an existing BladeCenter installation.")
Furthermore IBM will be shipping their 970 stuff in late 1Q 2004 (ie 3-31-04 and Apple had a 970 supercomputer installed and running on Oct 1, 2003 (a 6month dfference).

So Apple is 6 months faster on time to market than "Big Blue".
First, its likely that Apple had priority on the early shipments of the 970. Would you have preferred even slower shipments of G5 systems? Secondly, what part of "comprehensive high-availability and systems-management features" did you not catch? These systems are much more engineered than the Apple boxen. Apple didn't beat IBM to market in this case, because they have completely different markets, different requirements, and different products.

-Richard
 
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
If Apple made the LCD screens, HDs, RAM, processors, etc, I would agree, but how is Apple to know that the plant that is making the LCDs let out a batch of defective screens? As I said earlier, Steve doesn't sit down at the warehouse and go through every computer that is ordered to see if it is working perfectly and that is about the only way to truly be "100% quality control".

Apple is 100% responsible. That's why they have a warranty.
Now Apple buys a lot of LCD panels from company X, knowing that they are responsible for the end product, they get company X the assure Apple that they have adequate QC for product coming out of the plant. If they don't there are other manufactures.
The panels from company X arrive at final assembler company Y. Company Y takes the panel and other parts to make the final product say a 20 " cinema display. The final assembly goes through another quality check procedure before final a packaging and out the door.
Apple is responsible during the warranty period ( and sometimes after).

P.S. I not trying to be hard. I enjoy your many posts .
 
clusters

Originally posted by rjstanford
Er, WTF? I've never seen anyone fit 7 blades into a 3U box. A 3U box is approximately 5" tall. That would involve tossing a dual G5 into a box about 5" tall by 3.5" wide -- a pretty unusual form-factor. I would be very surprised if Apple did anything other than the traditional self-contained servers, at least for a while. Especially considering how long its taking them to get the basic 1U Xserve out the door... Besides, they'd have to reinvent so much to do this, instead of just leveraging existing standards like IBM did ("Install these blades in a new BladeCenter or upgrade an existing BladeCenter installation.") -Richard

Just out of curiosity, how important is having a hard drive to a server you would use as part of a cluster??? IBM fits 7 blades in a 5U enclosure, but those blades have room for 2 40gig harddrives in each one. Would removing them shrink the blades enough to fit in 3U?

This would also cut the cost of the drive and associated support chips. Does anyone know how this would effect its usefulness as a cluster?

Thinking outloud, but apple already designs a unique chassis for cluster applications...
 
7200 watts at 220 volts! - Much more than Xeon

The PPC970 blades need two 1800 watt power supplies (4 for redundant power)....

The dual 2.4 GHz Xeon blades need two 1200 watt 220v power supplies (4 for redundancy).

Is the "wattage myth" going to be the next one to collapse?
 
Re: clusters

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Just out of curiosity, how important is having a hard drive to a server you would use as part of a cluster??? IBM fits 7 blades in a 5U enclosure, but those blades have room for 2 40gig harddrives in each one. Would removing them shrink the blades enough to fit in 3U?

This would also cut the cost of the drive and associated support chips. Does anyone know how this would effect its usefulness as a cluster?

Where does the swap drive/partition go ?
 
Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Apple is 100% responsible. That's why they have a warranty.
Now Apple buys a lot of LCD panels from company X, knowing that they are responsible for the end product, they get company X the assure Apple that they have adequate QC for product coming out of the plant. If they don't there are other manufactures.
The panels from company X arrive at final assembler company Y. Company Y takes the panel and other parts to make the final product say a 20 " cinema display. The final assembly goes through another quality check procedure before final a packaging and out the door.
Apple is responsible during the warranty period ( and sometimes after).

P.S. I not trying to be hard. I enjoy your many posts .

That's fine, it's just that if the LCD on my PowerBook were to develop spots, I'd be more upset with whatever company that made them and not at Apple. Even if they did an inspection of their QC, that company ended up letting Apple down, and these spots apparently appear after weeks of use, so I don't see Apple being the one who was in the wrong. If Apple were to say "Too bad, we don't want to pay to fix it for you for free" then I would me mad, but they seem pretty open about taking them back and either replacing or repairing them, so they are doing whatever they can to deliver good PowerBooks to us along with any other faulty hardware that has come up.
 
Re: Re: clusters

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Where does the swap drive/partition go ?

A swap drive only comes into play when you are trying to use more memory than you physically have. Since all uses of clusters are for custom designed applications, it doesn't seem to me as though it would be a huge problem to just stay within the limits of the memory you have. Of course as a fail-safe you could use some sort of attached storage over the network, like an xRaid. Granted this would be a huge performance hit, but if you were only using it as a fail-safe, logging it and then fixing the app so it doesn't do that any more...

I don't know. I'm just guessing about a lot of this. Does anyone have any actual knowledge about clusters???
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.