Be Excellent To Each Other

From a machine we are evaluating in work. Outfitted with 400Gb of PCIe based SSD drives it costs about £30k. Mental cheap for this level of performance.

How many LEDs?

There's an earthquake going on on the top one and its all calm on the bottom.

That's CPU consumption on the top, one box per HT core, and RAM consumption on the bottom. It's 64 2.4Ghz cores and 200Gb of RAM in total.

You are taking this Mine Craft shit far too seriously.

Umm.... earthquake?

Just a heavy database load test.

Despite my limited knowledge of current computer specs, something tells me that's one Death Star of a server there. Wow.

Presumably sold-state drives with the kind of capacity we're talking about are only in those kind of high-end servers?

I'd imagine it has lots and lots of little ones, rather than a couple of big ones.

Also: LOOK AT MAH COREZ! Fuck yeah

It still won't run Fallout 3 on HQ graphics.

I'd imagine you're quite right.

You'd be wrong, it's actually two of these at 160Gb each in a RAID-0. They're not even particularly expensive, when you consider that they would be replacing a 100-disk SAN array that consumes something like 60U of space [1].

Also: LOOK AT MAH COREZ! Fuck yeah [/quote]I KNO RITE?!

Indeed, it has no GPU, just some sort of onboard graphics. Although if the Direct3D software render would parallelise over that many cores (and assuming Fallout would install on Windows Server 2k8 Enterprise) it'd probably have a decent go of it provided I didn't mind standing in a data centre in London's Docklands to play it (or running it over RDP).

The server itself, incidentally, is an R910. It's only 4U!



[1] if that sounds high, it's because our datacentre is an old telecoms one with quite restrictive power and cooling requirements. We often have to leave slots empty because we've topped out the supply for a given rack. And that 60U includes redundant controllers and the fibre channel switches.

Geeez and I thought 16 CPU's machine were impressive... that's awesomes +1.

You add funny.


That is a 16CPU box, isn't it?

I was told they were "about 200Gb each" by our SQL architect but have since realised they only do 160 and 320 units. So it must be two 160s.

No. Four sockets, eight cores per socket to give you 32 cores, plus Hyperthreading gives you 64, sort of (we all know HT isn't anywhere near another physical core, although I've benchmarked it at about +20% for our database work).

Yeah, I realised that when I saw the picture. I thought it was 16 quads.

4U awesome...

What is the benifit of it over a blade system?

A stack of a dozen blades is no good for running one big SQL instance.

That's not a server, that's a spoon!

I see you've played server spooney before!

cool, question answered

I laughed far too much at that, considering I set it up myself.

feteo!