Comments on: Blades and Virtualization Aren’t Mutually Exclusive: Part One, HP Power Sizing http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/ The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:13:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: adelp http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43580 adelp Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:03:57 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43580 @ Justin - That is good to know about the number of max nics on the full-height blade. I have intentionally stayed away from the HP "full height" and the IBM "double wide" because it will muddy the waters too quickly. Thank you for the update! Also, about the Flex-10. I am now thinking I'm going to split up the expansion into two sections, traditional and the virtualized offerings. Flex-10 is worth talking about! Thanks again! @ Justin – That is good to know about the number of max nics on the full-height blade. I have intentionally stayed away from the HP “full height” and the IBM “double wide” because it will muddy the waters too quickly. Thank you for the update!

Also, about the Flex-10. I am now thinking I’m going to split up the expansion into two sections, traditional and the virtualized offerings. Flex-10 is worth talking about!

Thanks again!

]]> By: Justin Other http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43579 Justin Other Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:29 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43579 Disclaimer: I did not enjoy my first experience with IBM blades. However, I do understand both sides of this argument and blades have significantly improved in the last few years. All of these comparisons are almost meaningless without real facts, figures, and dollar amounts (List price is just fine). We need to see RAM, CPU, power, etc. totaled, per server, per rack. In my environment the ESX host will always run out of memory before CPU. If I have to run more blades to get to the same total amount of ram then I have to factor in the additional ESX licenses. Also, be careful when maxing out the RAM in some servers because it can double the price. If your datacenter is short on space then you need to run blades. Disclaimer: I did not enjoy my first experience with IBM blades. However, I do understand both sides of this argument and blades have significantly improved in the last few years.

All of these comparisons are almost meaningless without real facts, figures, and dollar amounts (List price is just fine). We need to see RAM, CPU, power, etc. totaled, per server, per rack.

In my environment the ESX host will always run out of memory before CPU. If I have to run more blades to get to the same total amount of ram then I have to factor in the additional ESX licenses. Also, be careful when maxing out the RAM in some servers because it can double the price.

If your datacenter is short on space then you need to run blades.

]]> By: Alas, BladeVault is No More - blog.scottlowe.org - The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43571 Alas, BladeVault is No More - blog.scottlowe.org - The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Mon, 09 Feb 2009 02:13:48 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43571 [...] Blades and Virtualization Aren’t Mutually Exclusive: Part One, HP Power Sizing Blades and Virtualization Aren’t Mutually Exclusive: Part Two, IBM Power Sizing [...] [...] Blades and Virtualization Aren’t Mutually Exclusive: Part One, HP Power Sizing Blades and Virtualization Aren’t Mutually Exclusive: Part Two, IBM Power Sizing [...]

]]> By: Justin http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43570 Justin Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:44:32 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43570 Sorry for the extra post... @adelp: You can get 16 NICs in a full-height HP blade, but then you can't have any fibre, obviously. Sorry for the extra post…
@adelp: You can get 16 NICs in a full-height HP blade, but then you can’t have any fibre, obviously.

]]> By: Justin http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43569 Justin Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:43:08 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43569 Since we're talking about HP blades, it is possible now to get more than 8 "nics' in a half height blade, depending on what your definition of a NIC is: http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/blades/virtualconnect/index.html WARNING: annoying video autoplays with sound, my apologies... HP has a new 10GbE interconnects called Flex10 which gives two 10GbE pipes into the blades that are split into 8 virtual NICs total. That means if all you wanted was ethernet, you can get 60Gbps into a single half-height blade, spread across potentially 24 NICs. You could also present that only over 6 NICs each running 10Gb each, it's pretty flexible. And they're supported in ESX 3.5 Update 3. Since we’re talking about HP blades, it is possible now to get more than 8 “nics’ in a half height blade, depending on what your definition of a NIC is:
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/blades/virtualconnect/index.html
WARNING: annoying video autoplays with sound, my apologies…

HP has a new 10GbE interconnects called Flex10 which gives two 10GbE pipes into the blades that are split into 8 virtual NICs total. That means if all you wanted was ethernet, you can get 60Gbps into a single half-height blade, spread across potentially 24 NICs. You could also present that only over 6 NICs each running 10Gb each, it’s pretty flexible. And they’re supported in ESX 3.5 Update 3.

]]> By: adelp http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43566 adelp Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:11:21 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43566 Thank you to everyone for the comments. A couple of things: @Andrew Miller - The most nics you can get on either IBM or HP blades is 8 nics on a "normal size" (HP half height, IBM single size) blade. 2 nics onboard, 2 on the first expansion card, 4 port in the second bay. You can do 10GB down to the blade from both IBM and HP, you need the 10GB card. For both IBM and HP the 10GB switches take up two switch bays so you reduce the overall number of bays from 8 down to 6 on the back of the chassis. @Scott Lowe - The max NICS you can put on the HP half height is 8 (mentioned above) but you will be able to get at least 10 on the full height. It has 4 on-board and I think you could put a bunch of quads. I would have to look it up. I'll make sure I point all of this out in the next article.... Expansion! :) Thank you to everyone for the comments. A couple of things:

@Andrew Miller – The most nics you can get on either IBM or HP blades is 8 nics on a “normal size” (HP half height, IBM single size) blade. 2 nics onboard, 2 on the first expansion card, 4 port in the second bay.

You can do 10GB down to the blade from both IBM and HP, you need the 10GB card. For both IBM and HP the 10GB switches take up two switch bays so you reduce the overall number of bays from 8 down to 6 on the back of the chassis.

@Scott Lowe – The max NICS you can put on the HP half height is 8 (mentioned above) but you will be able to get at least 10 on the full height. It has 4 on-board and I think you could put a bunch of quads. I would have to look it up.

I’ll make sure I point all of this out in the next article…. Expansion! :)

]]> By: Blades and Virtualization Aren’t Mutually Exclusive: Part Two, IBM Power Sizing - blog.scottlowe.org - The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43565 Blades and Virtualization Aren’t Mutually Exclusive: Part Two, IBM Power Sizing - blog.scottlowe.org - The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:21:14 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43565 [...] is the second part of a series of articles on Blades and Virtualization. The first article is found here. Today, I will present IBM rack servers versus blade servers and explore the power consumption for [...] [...] is the second part of a series of articles on Blades and Virtualization. The first article is found here. Today, I will present IBM rack servers versus blade servers and explore the power consumption for [...]

]]> By: Philip Arnason http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43564 Philip Arnason Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:41:04 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43564 Hi Scott, I'm a frequent reader of your blog, and some of your information on VMware and Netapp has been gold to me over the last year. I started my own blog to detail some experiences of mine that I think would be helpful to others, that I haven't found elsewhere online. Since mine is around the same technology you often discuss, I thought I'd share my site: philiparnason.blogspot.com Hi Scott,
I’m a frequent reader of your blog, and some of your information on VMware and Netapp has been gold to me over the last year. I started my own blog to detail some experiences of mine that I think would be helpful to others, that I haven’t found elsewhere online.

Since mine is around the same technology you often discuss, I thought I’d share my site: philiparnason.blogspot.com

]]> By: william bishop http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43563 william bishop Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:01:12 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43563 Rereading I was not clear in that first paragraph. In my IBM's I get 8G FC and 2G Eth to each blade by default, and that can be increased. Rereading I was not clear in that first paragraph. In my IBM’s I get 8G FC and 2G Eth to each blade by default, and that can be increased.

]]> By: william bishop http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/02/04/blades-and-virtualization-arent-mutually-exclusive-part-one-hp-power-sizing/comment-page-1/#comment-43562 william bishop Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:57:49 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1144#comment-43562 Andrew; I don't think you get much denser than our enterprise, and SAN io has never been an issue. Think about it this way, from a storage admins position, have you ever maxed your hba's?, how about the switches? 2400+desktops, hundreds of servers, and I have yet to raise above 20% capacity on my links (though I do balance across fabrics)...but I've maxed out a symmetrix! Why? Because you can have 8G fc on all the blades, 8G on all the switches, but the issue is you'll still roll all of those devices into a bottleneck that's only 2G or 4G once you get to the array itself. You can get serious expansion with either the IBM or the HP blades, adding in several nic ports to each blade, so that point is not really valid. I can stick 4 or more nics in each blade, and I don't think I'd exceed 4 nics in your standalone boxes either. Even without expansion, I can plug in 2 gigs to each blade with IBM...Which is more than enough in 99.99% of cases. Add in expansion ports, and I can bump that quite a bit higher. As to rack power, yes, I'll max power if I fill the rack (as I have done), but that's fine, I can still get far more virtual machines in that 36U's of space (or less with HP), than you can get in a rack of 1 or 2U boxes. Why? Because in 9U's you have 9 servers, and I have 14. And instead of a mess of cables, I have just a few (Trust me I have 2 legacy datacenters of 1u boxes, and getting the bad one out of the middle of a rack gets to be not fun). To TCO, once you hit 9 blades, it pulls ahead of the competition (standard racks and towers)...but no one is saying it's the way you have to go, and if you are using 9 or less, by all means go the other way. But if you're going with 9 blades, think how easy it is to build out that 10th server...you just slide it in, install esx on it, zone it, and you're done. No racking, no cabling, no futzing with it. Period. And I didn't have to add a single port on my very expensive san switches, or my nearly expensive 6500's. Sure there are tradeoffs, maybe I just don't have the need. But neither do most people if you think about it. If you're willing to put the time and energy into planning carefully so that you get it right the first time, you'll be exceedingly happy with the bladed approach and virtualization. Andrew;
I don’t think you get much denser than our enterprise, and SAN io has never been an issue. Think about it this way, from a storage admins position, have you ever maxed your hba’s?, how about the switches? 2400+desktops, hundreds of servers, and I have yet to raise above 20% capacity on my links (though I do balance across fabrics)…but I’ve maxed out a symmetrix! Why? Because you can have 8G fc on all the blades, 8G on all the switches, but the issue is you’ll still roll all of those devices into a bottleneck that’s only 2G or 4G once you get to the array itself. You can get serious expansion with either the IBM or the HP blades, adding in several nic ports to each blade, so that point is not really valid. I can stick 4 or more nics in each blade, and I don’t think I’d exceed 4 nics in your standalone boxes either. Even without expansion, I can plug in 2 gigs to each blade with IBM…Which is more than enough in 99.99% of cases. Add in expansion ports, and I can bump that quite a bit higher.

As to rack power, yes, I’ll max power if I fill the rack (as I have done), but that’s fine, I can still get far more virtual machines in that 36U’s of space (or less with HP), than you can get in a rack of 1 or 2U boxes. Why? Because in 9U’s you have 9 servers, and I have 14. And instead of a mess of cables, I have just a few (Trust me I have 2 legacy datacenters of 1u boxes, and getting the bad one out of the middle of a rack gets to be not fun).

To TCO, once you hit 9 blades, it pulls ahead of the competition (standard racks and towers)…but no one is saying it’s the way you have to go, and if you are using 9 or less, by all means go the other way. But if you’re going with 9 blades, think how easy it is to build out that 10th server…you just slide it in, install esx on it, zone it, and you’re done. No racking, no cabling, no futzing with it. Period. And I didn’t have to add a single port on my very expensive san switches, or my nearly expensive 6500′s. Sure there are tradeoffs, maybe I just don’t have the need. But neither do most people if you think about it. If you’re willing to put the time and energy into planning carefully so that you get it right the first time, you’ll be exceedingly happy with the bladed approach and virtualization.

]]>