8 socket servers

Article: Inside Barcelona: AMD's Next Generation
By: Joe Chang (jchang6.delete@this.Xyahoo.com), May 27, 2007 1:46 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
I do not think you should judge the current deployment of X86/64 systems to guage the market size for 8-socket

For a brief period when Profusion-PentiumIII was out, there was reasonable volume for that platform
Right now only IBM and Unisys have them, they are expensive and have performance characteristics that make database scaling very difficult
Previously, HP had an 8-socket Xeon box for the previous generation for which they had reasonable financial success, but not enough to warrant a major development effort, considering they did have the Itanium line
So when there has been no broadly available 8-way box, not excessively expensive, for several years, why should there be many out there

Of course 4-ways today are fully populated
The 2-socket boxes are usually available with most current processors, while 4-socket is 1-2 years behind on Intel, current with AMD
So the main reason to buy 4-socket usually includes the immediate need for 4 sockets

Expensive, come on, 4-sockets populated, top bin + 16GB is $12-16K
storage is expensive but thats different

The matter is Barcelona should support glueless 8-socket
meaning no need for custom silicon components

anonymous (anonymous@email.cz) on 5/26/07 wrote:
>Just my observation :
>I am part of IT support for diverse universe of customers - Windows only machines
>, and from the considerable amount of machines that we are supporting less then
>2% are 4 socket machines - and less then 0.5% of machines are 4x4(socket/cpu) servers
>- all Xeon MP Tulsa running some exotic business application. We aren't supporting
>even one ! 8 socket Windows based server.
>OK we have some 4-5 4 socket machines running Xeon MP, and i faintly seem to remember
>few Pentium III 4 socket "rockets" but none of them are active anymore.
>I encountered a truly 8 socket machine only two times - one was Opteron ESX Development
>server used by "insane Unix Guys" to test Windows clustering inside ESX - and boy
>did they have fun (me too) - it was truly perfect platform for simulation of how
>not to do the clustering ..., and the second one was P4 based, IBM X3 based i think,
>running some heavy DB... with everything that you can opt on that one - including some serious amount of memory.
>As side note for the number of supported servers - its few thousands ... :)
>And from i can see from my position - i personally don't see the 8 socket machines
>as the next big thing - at least not under Windows. All those precious 4 socket
>machines are running either DB which needs loads of memory, or some business application
>that i never heard before :) that seems to be able to load that particular server.
>All around what i can see that people are migrating to blades - mainly 2 socket
>ones. 2 socket blade can run a lot these days, if its not enough or there is higher
>reliability requested - clustering of 2 socket systems. 4 socket one -> only if
>you need DB with a really lot of memory or you have application that can load all
>4 sockets. Plus if it is 4 socket machine - all that i have seen come with a lot
>of bells - top bin cpu-s, large amounts of memory, RAID-s, Fibrechannels, multiple
>teamed NIC cards .... i don't remember seeing a base one configuration anywhere.
>Simply nobody uses the base config - when its 4 socket its almost 99% time a rather
>serious machine which brings the Total Cost of machine into serious $$$.
>So maybe the cost of platform will come down, the performance will go up, but under
>Windows for normal customer there is almost nothing that can run there with any
>significance - and as such machines come fully loaded the price will stay still insanely high.
>So in niche markets the penetrations may go up but in mainstream i have my doubts
>whether there will by any penetration at all :)
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Barcelona Article OnlineDavid Kanter2007/05/16 03:20 AM
  Barcelona Article OnlinePiedPiper2007/05/16 05:12 AM
    Yes, I left out a sentence there. Fixed (NT)David Kanter2007/05/16 12:07 PM
  Barcelona Article Onlineanonymous2007/05/16 06:01 AM
    Barcelona Article OnlineAnonymous2007/05/16 06:28 PM
      Barcelona Article Onlineanonymous2007/05/16 07:52 PM
  Barcelona Article OnlineAnonymous12007/05/16 07:08 AM
  Barcelona Article OnlineDean M2007/05/16 11:09 AM
    Barcelona Article OnlineDavid Kanter2007/05/16 12:38 PM
      Barcelona Article OnlineDean M2007/05/16 02:10 PM
  Barcelona Article OnlineIntelUser20002007/05/16 02:59 PM
    Barcelona Article OnlineLinus Torvalds2007/05/16 03:24 PM
    Barcelona Article OnlineDavid Kanter2007/05/16 04:57 PM
    Barcelona Article OnlineMichael S2007/05/17 05:07 AM
      Barcelona Article OnlineIntelUser20002007/05/18 08:58 PM
  8 socket serversDoug Siebert2007/05/16 04:58 PM
    8 socket serversMichael S2007/05/17 05:20 AM
      8 socket serversJoe Chang2007/05/17 07:38 AM
      8 socket serversAlex Jones2007/05/17 09:35 AM
      8 socket serversJose2007/05/23 08:23 AM
        8 socket serversMichael S2007/05/23 11:37 AM
          8 socket serversanonymous2007/05/26 03:49 PM
            8 socket serversJoe Chang2007/05/27 01:46 PM
        8 socket serversDoug Siebert2007/05/23 09:56 PM
          8 socket serversJoe Chang2007/05/24 04:33 AM
          8 socket serversAnonymous2007/05/24 11:18 AM
            8 socket serversDoug Siebert2007/05/24 10:47 PM
              8 socket serversLinus Torvalds2007/05/25 10:35 AM
          8 socket serversNick2007/05/25 02:29 AM
  Performance estimation seems oddHotar2007/05/17 01:54 AM
    Performance estimation seems oddDavid Kanter2007/05/17 08:38 AM
  microops vs macroops on page 4Peter Lund2007/05/17 12:04 PM
    microops vs macroops on page 4David Kanter2007/05/21 04:51 PM
      microops vs macroops on page 4EduardoS2007/05/21 05:42 PM
        microops vs macroops on page 4dess2007/05/21 07:00 PM
  Barcelona Article OnlinePeter Lund2007/05/17 12:25 PM
  macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/21 07:24 AM
    macro-op vs. micro-opDavid Kanter2007/05/21 04:38 PM
      macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/21 06:15 PM
        macro-op vs. micro-opDavid Kanter2007/05/22 12:11 AM
          macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/22 03:56 AM
            macro-op vs. micro-opGipsel2007/05/22 05:05 AM
              macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/22 05:52 AM
                macro-op vs. micro-opanonymous2007/05/22 06:14 AM
                  macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/22 06:44 AM
                    macro-op vs. micro-opEduardoS2007/05/22 02:19 PM
                      macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/24 08:52 AM
            Stop comparing apples to orangesEduardoS2007/05/22 02:30 PM
              Stop comparing apples to orangesdess2007/05/22 04:09 PM
                Stop comparing apples to orangesdess2007/05/22 04:30 PM
                Stop comparing apples to orangesEduardoS2007/05/22 04:31 PM
                  Stop comparing... apples to oranges?dess2007/05/24 09:30 AM
              Stop comparing apples to orangesanonymous2007/05/22 08:12 PM
                Stop comparing apples to orangesEduardoS2007/05/23 02:50 PM
          macro-op vs. micro-opanonymous2007/05/22 06:08 AM
            macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/22 06:40 AM
              macro-op vs. micro-opanonymous2007/05/22 06:48 AM
      macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/21 08:30 PM
        macro-op vs. micro-opanonymous2007/05/22 06:44 AM
          macro-op vs. micro-opdess2007/05/24 09:38 AM
      macro-op vs. micro-opMichael S2007/05/22 05:26 AM
Reply to this Topic
Body: No Text
How do you spell avocado?