Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases Cluster Node Xserve
JHromadka writes "Apple today released a cluster node version of its Xserve rackmount server. The Cluster Node is a dual 1.33GHz G4 that has 256 MB RAM, no optical drive, Gigabit Ethernet only on the logic board, no graphics card, and only 10 client licenses. Starting price is $2799, which is a grand less than the normal Xserve."
What exactly does this mean? Doesn't Apple usually give unlimited client licenses or is there something different going on here? "10 client licenses" seems like something that you see on a windowsXP box.
Configurability is always a good thing, and this specific package looks very attractive for people who want to do some fairly large scale low budget vector computing.
By offering more processors for the dollar, this configuration really plays to the platform's strengths in computational clusters for applications that can use Altivec.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
Imagine a be... No. I can't say it. I won't.
I had a sucky sig.
Note also that the cluster node only comes with a single 60 GB hard drive (rather than four of them on the Xserve proper), and you can't BTO a bigger one at the Apple Store.
Low base RAM configurations are a good thing in this case.
Noone in their right minds buys RAM thru Apple, they charge insane markups. Having one supplier is convenient, but not worth that kind of price imho.
This way, if someone buys a rack full of XServes, they can spend under $10K filling them up with ram instead of two or three times that buying preinstalled RAM from Apple.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
Hey! Earlier today this page: XServe Design included a cool joke:
I looked again, and now its gone. Spoilsports!. Did anyone cache the original? Its quoted here: At Macintouch. I swear I am not making this up!
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
A little bigger on the inside than out
for some reason, I'm having difficulty imagining a beowulf cluster of these...
There are lots of clustered applications that don't require huge amounts of RAM....and, as someone already pointed out, Apple RAM is expensive too.
-psy
Imagine a single one of these, removed from the cluster.
This sig no verb.
When building a very large cluster this latter feature is massively important unless you have free sysadmin. dealing with failures is a crucial part of running a cluster. I've seen too many caseswhere the individual units work fine but overheat in a cluster or have too much down time or some fraction of the units fail more often. I'll pay double for reliability and in fact the last two systems I did pay double and got reliability. (supermicro P4s and RLX blades)
Stripping cluster units down is a good idea. having the fastes possible or most disk space system is not always important in a cluster. its throughput per dollar and reliability that count most. In my humble opinion P3s sometimes outperform p4s on relaibility and cost of ownership per throughput.
many types of clusters dont require having even a local disk. One of the more important developments in the linux world is the linux boot and bproc (from Los Alamos) which allow a cluster to run without any moving parts other than the fans (no CD, floppy, or hardrives need ever be present). adding redundant powersupplies or better yet an external powersupply is yet another desirable feature.
A while back I bought two xserves and they are built with impressive design standards and from what I can tell are highly reliable. They are super easy to sys admin and to keep pathced since apple provides easy to use tools.
the main problem with the apple, and the reason I still use x86 linux boxes for my clusters has been the fact that sometimes there is one or two peices of code that I cant get for the PPC cluster. This is not a big deal just a nuicance. the other problem is the price to throughput ratio. If all of my code worked well with the altivec set my estimates convince me that the ppc smoke the x86 boxes of comparable qualiy in throughput per dollar. but if I dont compile well for the altivec set the PC win on price. Since my main apps arent written with the altivec in mind (they are in fortran and have branches inside loops), i'm hosed.
what I have found is that the apples do make very cost cometitive disk servers when you include the total cost of ownership and high quality.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As others have said, the "10-client" limitation is for AppleShare file sharing (Apple File Protocol, or AFP) connections only. Nothing else about the server is restricted or limited in any way.
Sorry it can't be linked directly, but if you go to http://store.apple.com/, click "Apple Software" under "Software and Books" on the left, and scroll down to "Mac OS X Server v10.2 (10-User Lic.)", you will see:
A 10 User license should be used if your server load is no more than 10 simultaneous file sharing connections (for more connections, please select the Unlimited license).
G4 Processors have a number of vector based units (known as Altivec) which process vectors (128) very very quickly. This is what gives the G4 the huge distributed.net advantage.
Go out and get sailing!
Apple's targeting using low-end hardware to tackle mid-range complexity tasks.
Final Cut Pro 4 will come out next month. Shake 3.0 is also supposedly around the corner as well.
Either of these programs, coupled with a XRaid and HD footage, will provide an interesting method for small vfx houses to tackle production.
Anything that lowers the bar of entry is a good thing, IMO.
-Brett
Actually, G4s perform better than P4s on RC5 due to their faster hardware rotate support - not AltiVec.
Actually a new rc5 client is soon to be released (may already be release by this posting) with AltiVec instructions. There are claims of a 300% speed increase in checking rc5-72 keys.
macslash article
"However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
I'm using the new rc5-72 client and getting about 19 million keys per second on a dual 1.0GHz tower. A cluster of XServes would be awesome at this task.
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
after reading someone in the iMac thread complain about gettng a dual Xeon system for cheaper, i went over to dell's site to look at the 1U dual-cpu configs they offer. For about the same price as this server, Dell offered a dual-P3 at 1.26GHz. The fastest available processors in the list were 1.5ghz or so. Not an extensive search, but interesting results (to me) regardless.
- Transition to UNIXy OS complete
- Xserve has appeared
- Node clusters have appeared
- Xraid
- high-end video editing (Final Cut Pro)
- high-end compositing software (Shake)
- high-end audio production (Logic)
- Maya support
and let's not forget existing pieces:
- QuickTime (now the basis of MPEG-4)
- relationship with Adobe (Photoshop, et. al)
- Avid (just ported Symphony to OS X)
- the other big audio guys (MOTU etc.)
They get that processor situation sorted out come July, they are poised to totally pull it off, too. The slow processor argument is the chief complaint about Apple. Take that away, and they are looking more impressive for content creators than anytime in their history.
(Oh, and incidentally, on a personal note - just my opinion, don't flame me - the above are all reasons why Quark can go to hell.)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.