Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lenovo to Sell Blade Desktops

Posted by timothy on from the the-thin-client-is-back-again-and-again dept.

Some guy writes "Having acquired IBM's PC division, Lenovo will become the first major reseller of blade desktops. Blade desktops feature only input devices and a 'networking unit,' connecting to a blade server for computational power. Such thin client designs reduce support needs and cluttered desk space, but require complex deployments to work well."

23 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Thin Client Redux by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


    Here's a link containing some more detailed information about ClearCube's technology.

    So...thin clients are back in vogue yet again...let's see if they stick this time. With the Blade Desktop's modular architecture and ability to run the KVM over standard, existing LAN infrastructure, this iteration might have a shot.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Thin Client Redux by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the surface, it looks like a thin client, but I think the difference is that each user would still get their own dedicated computer, so really, it's just a long distance KVM.

    2. Re:Thin Client Redux by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) They refresh from the server so if something goes wrong you can simply push the off button and turn them on again

      2) No HD and no fan means no moving parts (except keyboard and mouse) and thus very few hardware failures (except keyboard and mouse)

      3) Your end users don't have physical access to machines with data on them. This is a huge plus for security.

    3. Re:Thin Client Redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what's the point?
      Well for one thing, the 'thin client' can have a single 'System on a Chip' instead of all the seperate ICs you're talking about... since it's all in a single piece of silicon, it can be pretty cheap/low power.

      For another, rather than running say 300 computers at 10% utilization you could possibly get by with 60 blades averaging 50% load for 300 users. If you're a big company that has a lot of people doing very low cpu intensive stuff like data entry/etc, it can make a difference in TCO to run a thin client environemt Vs a full blown desktop for everyone.

      And because it's really a cluster, people who need to have more processing power than a standard desktop can have it.

    4. Re:Thin Client Redux by coflow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm certainly no expert on what qualifies as a thin client, but here's my input based on a client my company recently did work for. They moved approximately 7000 desktop pc's out of their stores' back offices (low class pc's, purchasable for approximately $500 each) and replaced them with a "thin client" machine running an embedded windows system. As it turns out, these machines cost just slightly more than the older desktops, contain slightly less powerful processors, and have a lower capactiy for RAM, although they were installed with more RAM than what the older PCs had by default. The theory was that since the thin client contained no HDD, the time to failure was cut from an average of 2 years per machine to 32 years per machine. Other than the lack of a hard drive, this was a PC in my mind.

      I guess the only reason I point this out is that based on this definition of a thin client, the Lenovo blade workstation doesn't seem to qualify as one. But I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that would consider the blade a thin client.

    5. Re:Thin Client Redux by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1) They refresh from the server so if something goes wrong you can simply push the off button and turn them on again
      Moving components to the server room doesn't stop them from breaking, especially since (like I said) the thin clients are still nearly PCs in themselves. Especially in the case of this Levono system where each user apparently has their own blade. Hopefully there is a reduction in hard drive count, which would help. On the other hand there's increased reliance on the network, which will cause downtime.
      3) Your end users don't have physical access to machines with data on them. This is a huge plus for security.
      For every user who steals a hard drive, a thousand will use email. Think clients don't help.

      I predict that, once again, the thin clients will end up costing about as much as mid-spec PCs, leaving nothing left over to justify the cost of a big expensive server for the backroom.

      You can accomplish practically the same thing by using PCs with a standardized configuration and putting home directories on a fileserver.

  2. What? by shobadobs · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this summary serious? Wouldn't they want output devices, too?

    1. Re:What? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny
      Is this summary serious? Wouldn't they want output devices, too?
      Remember, this is about centralizing stuff. All your output are belong to us, comrade!
  3. Reasons why phbs will love this ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
    [ ] "reduces desk clutter" - so they can now make your cubby smaller, since you no longer need a desk - a tea wagon should suffice
    [ ] they can now appropriate your amd64-3000 for themselves, since you don't need such a powerful unit any more
    [ ] "a clean desk is a sign of a sick mind" - and this will reduce desk clutter ... so you can be fired because you're now obviously a sicko perv
    [ ] central management - "all your pr0n are belong to us"
    ... I for one don't welcome our asian blade-serving overlords.
    1. Re:Reasons why phbs will love this ... by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      ... except this isn't a real "thin client". You get a dedicated cpu/disk/etc in a rack for each user.

      Also, because of the complexity of configuring, etc., they'll be more expensive to set up and maintain than a beige box (which the article points to as one of the reasons it hasn't been done that way before).

      Think of it as the equivalent of your current PC stuffed in another room, with a long mouse cord, a long keyboard cord, and a long monitor cord. Also, since all the "servers" will be in one place, you'll need a dedicated cooling solution, so look for more $$$.

      So, no energy savings, higher acquisition, setup and maintenance costs, less expandability/flexibility, and a single point of failure/total data loss.

      So what is the upside, again?

  4. 3270 emulation by Aslan72 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "How much has the corporate desktop PC changed in the last 20 years?"

    A bit. The thing though is that this really isn't a new concept; its name has changed a bit, but it boils down to the 3270 concept that IBM made popular. This time you have a mouse and a color monitor instead of a 3270 keyboard and a green screen.

    I remember hearing back in college that the trend floats from centralized computing to distributed and then back again, but I'd never thought I'd see it.

    --pete

  5. In my day... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2, Funny

    We called them "dickless workstations"

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:In my day... by Christopheles · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because you don't have to dick around with them to make them work?

    2. Re:In my day... by propellor_head · · Score: 4, Funny
      Because you don't have to dick around with them to make them work?

      ... or because they ran Eunuchs?

  6. NOT a thin client by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thin clients keep all their info on the server. This is NOT a thin client. It might be called a remote client, but each blade has its own CPU, disk drives, etc. Each blade is a full PC, serving just one desktop. The only thing unusual is that the PC is located in the server room instead of on the desktop. Thin clients are really just a minor variation on the old timeshare model of big expensive computers. This could only be considered a thin client if you think of every user having their very own dedicated server.

    Thin clients vs PCs are like taxis vs private cars. Blade PCs are like private cars kept in a communal garage, like an apartment block vs a private house.

    You didn't even read your own link. This is a new low for slashdot, methinks.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
  7. Re:And how is this different? by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sun Ray == true thin client. It connects to a server running apps.

    This == glorified one port KVM. Basically, it uses a blade server as a desktop PC. It extends the keyboard, mouse, and VGA to the desk from the server room.

  8. The right tool for the job by kebes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see lots of posts that are reminding us how thin clients are nothing new. Indeed having thin clients and centralized processing is nothing new... and sometimes it seems that the pendulum swings back and forth between "imagine how cool it would be if each user had this much power on their desktop" and "imagine how amazing it would be if all this computing power could be centralized and used efficiently."

    I think the point to take out of all this is that we should use the right tool for the job. There are lots of good desktop PCs, and lots of good thin client solutions (or being worked on). For any given task, you have to decide what's right. What is easier to manage, a centralized server or a bunch of desktops? (depends on how many users you have, what software you're running, etc.) What's more powerful, having good desktop PCs or a central server? (depends on your software needs) What's more cost effective? (again... it depends!)

    Obviously hard-core coders and video game designers are going to need their own dedicated machines for testing (and crashing!)... whereas alot of managers, secretaries, and data entry personal would do fine with thin clients.

    Maybe this is totally obvious to slashdotters... but it's something that perhaps the higher-ups in companies should come to realize. There is no perfect solution... you have to crunch the numbers for any particular corporate environment.

    1. Re:The right tool for the job by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The other advantages are that you can scale up systems as required centrally. Desktop blades offer a lot of cool advantages, but the ultimate problem is that they aren't designed for the server room, they are intended for the wiring closet.

      This is a problem because most wiring closets aren't designed for the cooling requirement (even just puting in a 6500 series switch can be hard), and when you have a good number of PCs in one place you have to look at a UPS.

      Starting from scratch it can be great, but it is hard as a retrofit to actually make work.

  9. Upside: high buzzword density by lheal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The PHBs will hear "managed solution", "TCO", and the like, and stumble over themselves writing checks.

    OT: Did you year about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? He used to lie awake at night wondering if there were really a dog.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  10. NOT a thin term by Predius · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those too lazy to RTFA...

    These are not thin terms. It's a bunch of full function blade servers, on a managed KVM backplane. You then have remote 'end nodes' that supply DVI/USB/sound over Cat5, Fiber, or IP, your choice.

    So far, this is pretty ho-hum, boring. The neat trick is the software that comes with it. Take an 8 blade chassis, setup 7 users on it, each with their own PC. Blade 8 is now your hot spare. Uh oh, Joe just had a failure? Fire up the management app from your desk, swap him to blade 8. Without getting up, Joe now has a new system, and you can deal with the failed blade on your time, either remotely via your end node, or in the server room.

    No, it's not a huge advancement, but for places that maintain large fleets of desktops that run near identical OS/software installs, it makes system management and maint a bit easier by reducing time lost to running around shuffling hardware.

  11. Re:FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CANT READ... by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny
    ... they can't read, so shouting in all-caps isn't going to do it. You have to write SLOWER:
    t-h-e-s-e
    a-r-e
    n-o-t
    t-h-i-n
    c-l-i-e-n-t-s
    ... like you would with someone from Human Resources.
  12. Management License way overpriced. by qualico · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is where any benefits are harvested back to ClearCube: $2000 per seat for management license?!
    Don't forget the additional $1200 for hardware per seat?!?

    No thanks.

    I'll spend the $400 per seat on a new computer and send my staff on a vacation with the $3000 per seat savings.

  13. the economic case by Budenny · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The thread is very critical of thin clients, but its not very clear why. Here is the case I am looking at: a museum with no money, and 3 old windows machines, plus one reasonably fast recent one. They would like to give the public access to their catalogue, run some kind of shared calendar for the various volunteers who staff the place. At the moment one of the old machines is in storage, the fast machine is in the office but used only a couple of days a week when their secretary comes in and does mail and accounts, one runs their catalogue, but since it is Win98 and has no security they cannot let the public use it...

    What I am thinking is, use Skole Linux, buy cheap network cards, and run three thin clients off the fast recent machine. Is this not a case where without spending hardly any more money the institution gets a lot more functionality out of what it already has? And may there not be lots of public sector/charity cases where this sort of thing applies? Or is there something about thin clients or Skole Linux that I don't know?