Cisco Introduces Rackmount Servers

1sockchuck writes "After shaking up the market for blade servers, Cisco Systems is launching a line of rackmount servers. But the company says its ambitions are more targeted than a full-scale 'all your racks are belong to us' assault on the volume server market. Cisco says it sees its 1U and 2U C-Series rackmount servers as offering an entry point to its Unified Computing System vision for companies who've built their data centers using rackmount servers instead of blades. But it thinks many customers will like the expanded memory capacity Cisco has built into the Xeon 5500/Nehalem EP processor."

Comments

Sorry Cisco

[DigiShaman]

You're a day late and a dollar short.

This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell, HP, and VMWare. Feel free to try in the market place however, but I think it's a big waste of your capitol and R&D.

Re:Sorry Cisco

[Anonymous Coward]

This market is already cornered by the likes of Dell, HP, and VMWare.

One of the things that Cisco gains by doing this is the elimination of their need to re-label HP Proliant servers for their IP telephony server products, and there are many very large companies that use such, have standardized on Cisco hardware, and will buy them.

Re:Sorry Cisco

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a day late and a dollar short.

You underestimate the power of collusion between Cisco and Gartner. My employer recently spent OODLES above and beyond that of a more reliable and featureful PBX in order to adhere to Gartner's "single source" recommendation. It doesn't matter if it costs more - it *has to be better* if it allows you to consolidate suppliers.

It really hurts me to go in to work every day knowing that I work for idiots. Instead of a 1U PBX server that just sat there untouched for TWO YEARS, now we have 20U (6 unique boxes total) that need all sorts of poking and prodding.

Cisco knows that they can just buy some high-end hookers for the people who make the big decisions, period. They really don't care if the quality is there. I'm there to hold the bag for them when the shit hits the fan.

Re:Sorry Cisco

[mcrbids]

You're a day late and a dollar short.

You don't understand how this "free market economy" works, do you?

All that's needed for Cisco is to sell more product than it costs them to make. That's called profit. So long as they make a profit, it's a good move. If they don't sell enough, then it's a short-lived moved.

The fact that you named so many vendors (Dell, HP, VMWare) makes it clear that it's still an *open* marketplace, and that there is still competition. Thus, it's not "cornered" by any stretch. In fact, not only have I *never* purchased hardware from any of the vendors you name, one of the vendors doesn't even sell hardware! (when did VMWare get into the hardware business?)

Personally, I welcome another hat thrown into the fray! The only possible thing that could come of this is lower prices, better quality, and more likely both. Predicting their demise as they enter the marketplace, when they are one of the most well-known and trusted brands in IT is just a tad premature.

Re:Sorry Cisco

[Nefarious Wheel]

Branding is important, especially when the brand name is written into contracts. There might be fewer hoops to jump through if you can single-source a solution where a single vendor is named. This lives in a place I call "procurement space".

Take that, HP!

[binaryspiral]

HP used to provide hardware for Cisco's appliances and servers that they resold as Cisco branded gear... Call Managers and the like.

Well, HP's been really pissing off Cisco by selling ProCurve switches with lifetime warranties and converting Cisco Catalyst switch users over to HP ProCurve customers. Cisco's been losing all this SmartNet gravy that they wallow in year after year. So this is their answer... sell servers to piss in HP's very large bowl of Cheerios.

Good luck Cisco, you're entering a cut throat market with well established hardware vendors in a global recession... You've either got a large pair of brass balls or you're just really really stupid.