Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Clustering Hardware?

Posted by Cliff on from the expensive-highway-or-the-cheap-road dept.

Kanagawa asks: "The last few years have seen a slew of new Linux clustering and blade-server hardware solutions; they're being offered by the likes of HP, IBM, and smaller companies like Penguin Computing. We've been using the HP gear for awhile with mixed results and have decided to re-evaluate other solutions. We can't help but notice that the Google gear in our co-lo appears to be off-the-shelf motherboards screwed to aluminum shelves. So, it's making us curious. What have Slashdot's famed readers found to be reliable and cost effective for clustering? Do you prefer blade server forms, white-box rack mount units, or high-end multi-CPU servers? And, most importantly, what do you look for when making a choice?"

5 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Depends on

    (a) Your cost budget

    (b) Your work requirement: A Search engine is different from a weather forecast center.

    (c) Cost of ownership which includes maintenance etc

  2. Dual Core Opteron Blades by municio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the current time I would choose blades based on dual core Opterons form many reasons. Some of the main ones are:

    - Price
    - Software availability
    - Power consumption
    - Density

    Brand depends on what your company is confortable with. Some companies would want to have the backing of IBM, SUN or HP. Others will be quite satisfied with in house built blades. This days it's quite easy to build your own blade, some mother boards builders take care of almost all components and complexity (for example Tyan). But again, maybe the PHBs at your gig will run for the hills if you mention the word motherboard alone.

  3. Read the Google paper ! by devitto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the paper, it goes into tedious detail on the architecture and low-level operation of the application. Why do you think it does this? Because it is the application that *totally* depicts the solution, they chose lots of systems because of reliability, they made those systems "desktop class" because they didn't get much extra from using super-MP/MC systems.

    It's a great article, I strongely suggest you read properly, and do what they said they did - evaluate need against what's available.

  4. Cheap isnt always the way to go by oh_the_humanity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When doing clkustering and super computer work. Cheap isnt always the best way to go , if you take into consideration that 5 - 10 % of nodes will either not be functioning correctly or will have some sort of hardware failure. The more you cluster the more man power it takes to repair these nodes. if you buy 1000 $499 colomachines , and 50 of them are failing at any given time, it becomes very time consuming and tedious to keep the cluster going. Spending the extra bucks on high quality hardware , will save you money and head ache in the end. I always use the analogy when talking to older folks who want to get started in computers. spend the extra bucks to get a new machine. The extra money you spend on buying new good equipment , will more than pay for itself in comparison , to the amount of frustration you get from buying old used slow computers. My $.2

    --
    "When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
  5. It's not that the MegaRAID cards are bad... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...it's the firmware Dell shoves on them.
    It's only designed to hook up with Dell disc arrays and tape drives and everything else can shove it (from their point of view).
    Do yourself a favor and skip 'em and just by the cards straight from LSI.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON