Linux Clustering Hardware?

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?"

Comments

Dual Core Opteron Blades

[municio]

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.

Read the Google paper !

[devitto]

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.