Slashdot Mirror
Sun Picks Athlon For Cobalt Servers
ncc74656 writes: "In this TechWeb article, AMD may have achieved one of its longtime goals of getting the Athlon into the server market. Sun's Cobalt division is set to unveil a single-processor Internet-appliance server next week that will use the Athlon. Since there's still no 760MP chipset, there won't be any MP Cobalt boxen for a while ... but not everybody needs MP, and this is still a step in the right direction."
Now in a serious server environment, it seems to me that money is probably not as big an issue, so this kind of negated one of Anthlon's main advantage over a Intel chip right off.
Not necessarily true... a saving of $100 per processor adds up when extended to a server farm, particularly when multiprocessor machines are (eventually!) added. given that in certain configurations the athlon outperforms the PIII Mhz per Mhz, that gains some more.
I think what is pushing the envelope here though is RDRAM - buying a Gig of SDRAM is much cheaper than RDRAM ($280 vs $1452, at a glance on pricewatch), as high-end Intel chipsets require it.
The best point about this happening is it may bring the Athlon in as the choice for the desktop machine as well, if the company sees it performs the same or better and is cheaper.
Secondly, assuming you have lots of servers in an enclosed area, heat is a big deal; you want good air condition system. A room full of Athlons is HOT. This further offset the "true" cost of using Athlon servers
I wouldn't agree. The only signs I've seen of Athlons generating lots of heat is when they're overclocked. A friend of mine runs his Thunderbird 850 at 950Mhz at 20 celsius (about 50F), with a decent cooling system.
Any company that is buying machines for use as servers is going to spend the extra $30 per machine to get a good cooling system, regardless of processor type. Those boxes come with 3 fan ports, a heat sink the size of a brick... usually a room with lots of servers in it is bloody cold because of all the airflow!
Fross
Cobalt servers are expensive crap. Before you mod this down as flamebait, think about the following:
Say you've got $5000 to spend on a new server. You can get one of two 1U rackmounted servers:
Option 1: 450Mhz processor, 512MB RAM, two 5400RPM 30GB mirrored (RAID-1) drives, lots of free software.
Option 2: Two 1GHz processors, 1024MB RAM, two hot-swappable 10K RPM Ultra-160 SCSI 36GB mirrored (RAID-1) drives, and the identical free software.
Option 1 is a cobalt Raq. Option 2 is a Supermicro 6010L with 1GHz Pentium III processors, Supermicro certified memory, and IBM drives.
What it comes down to is that a $5000 Cobalt RaQ is a $1000 system with a $4000 name.
I'd say to build your own boxes -- I can't imagine anyone here would have trouble working where things go -- but if you don't want to do that, get systems from VA Linux or BSDI; as for software, take a look at webmin, there are very few server applications which do not have webmin plugins, and with webmin you can give restricted access to people as you see fit.
(OT: where did the bandwidth and server space come from, anyway?)
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I think that posting another Intel vs. AMD article disguised as a Sun/Cobalt/Linux-rules arguement is pretty boring.
We already know that Slashdot's readers overwhelmingly support AMD to holy-war proportions.
We should be able to moderate the stories actually post on the main page. The editors should be subject to karma. If you put up something stupid you get smacked.
Of course, as a result of editor karma-whoring every other story would show Linux pit against any other operating system or AMD pit against Intel.
There were probably more than one submission about this news but Cliff chose the one that showed significant bias.
I don't even really understand why there is such a hype about the Athlon chips. They are less expensive and may be technically superior. But that arguement doesn't cleanly follow the patterns slashdot readers follow. Take Linux for example, it is surely less expensive than other operating systems, but it is not even close to being technically better than all others. FreeBSD, technically better, lacks bleeding edge drivers, same cost as Linux, yet with almost 1/5 the user base.
Who the hell cares if they can get 150fps in quake or 147, I sure as hell don't. There are better things to argue about. We're about to innagurate a president who will only account for his actions in the past 20 years.
And on top of it all, my favorite lighter is almost empty.
The List of Grievances with Slashdot.
First, lets get this get of the way: I use an Athlon at home and a Pentium at work.
Many people (including myself) like Anthon because it is cheap and fast, more bangs for your bucks and all that; this is ideal for home user. However I see two things against using Athlon as a server: it uses more power and generates more heat.
Now in a serious server environment, it seems to me that money is probably not as big an issue, so this kind of negated one of Anthlon's main advantage over a Intel chip right off.
Secondly, assuming you have lots of servers in an enclosed area, heat is a big deal; you want good air condition system. A room full of Athlons is HOT. This further offset the "true" cost of using Athlon servers
Also since Athlons use more energy, it stands to reason that your UPS system will not last as long as a similar number of Pentiums if there is a problem. Now for servers, up time is very important (unless you run WinXX ;-), so this seems another strike against Athlon.
And finally like the article said (you did read it right?), Ahtlon don't have multi-processors support yet so that is another strike...
Don't get me wrong, I love my Athlon. But server may not be the right application for *this* generation of AMD chips. But AMD did promise support for multi-processors, low-energy chips soon, so there is still hope.
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
from the article:
low-end Internet-appliance server
I gues that's not exactly the Server market AMD wants too get their fingers in. It may be a lucrative but that's not ther server market Intel dominates. I guess there are already a lot of homegrown AMD based "Servers" in a lot of offices
Besides that it's not even a new customer for AMD. As the article states:
already supplies the K6-II processor for Cobalt's current one-rack Internet server
Must be a very big server if it takes a whole rack(Just kidding, I know it's one U)
"Mommy, mommy! The garbage man is here!" "Well, tell him we don't want any!" -- Groucho Marx
Your observation that the Athlons use, on average, more power and radiate more heat than the comparable Intel processor is, from what data I've seen, absolutely correct. However, I don't think that they use more power or generate more heat than an Alpha processor (some of those guys get hot, as anyone who's ever not quite given an Alpha-attached heatsink enough time to cool down has discovered ;-) ). Alphas are fairly common in the server (and rackmount server) market. True, you probably wouldn't want to stick one in a 1U, but still... (I don't have any hard numbers, but I imagine that the Duron line is probably well suited to a 1U in terms of die size, power use, and heat profile, given a well-designed case at least.)
If there is anything that will hold the Duron/Athlon/Thunderbird line back from server-market acceptance (technical reason, not Intel-ism in IT depts.), it would be the comparatively small cache sizes. I.e. you'll probably want to use an UltraSparc-based solution with (2-8) megs of cache per chip (or some other "big cache" arch like Alpha) for the DB server[1], but everything else (www, mail, etc) is just fine with the "small" x86 machines, a domain in which ceteris parabis Athlon would win over Pentium by virtue of decreased cost for similar of greater functionality.
[1] of course there are many other factors that go into making a mid-to-high-end DB server, but I/O and backplane bandwidth do play an important role; having large chip caches and >32bit architectures helps this quite a bit (the other main area is of course disk, but that's outside the topic at the moment)
--
Fuck Censorship.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
<ramt>
I will be extermely glad when AMD enters this market in a serious way. There has been a less than virtuous circle occuring with Dell/Intel commercial products. Since the company buys Intel servers, it buys Intel desktops (after all, we can only find the talent with the mind of a slime mold to maintain them you know and these people can only maintain one kind of one thing...). Both the desktops and the servers are horridly underpowered and overpriced. Further, while Dell machines are made to be assembled easily, upgrades are an oxymoron. It will be nice when the corporate market understands that it has a real choice.
</rant>
<disclosure>
I own and reccomend AMD stock
</disclosure>
Read about it here Ahead of schedule is not exactly true, but its coming soon.
OK, this might be news because of the selection of Athlon itself, but Cobalt have been using AMD devices in their RaQ range for years now. In fact all but the first itteration (which were MIPS based) have run on K6 CPUs. There are hundreds of thousands of web sites happily running on AMD at this very moment! :)
--