HP Puts 1000 Cores in a Single Rack

Want to get the most processing power possible in your data center to run cloud computing and Web 2.0 apps? HP is introducing the ProLiant BL2x220c G5 server blade today, which doubles the processing density by putting two servers into each half-height blade. Using Intel Xeon 5400 quad-core processors, you can put up to 1024 cores and 2 terabytes of RAM in 128 servers in a 42U c-Class rack – that’s 12.3 teraflops in eight square feet.

Fitting two servers into a single blade means leaving some things out, Iain Stephen, HP’s vice president for industry standard servers, said.

Two servers in each blade, four cores in each server: the HP ProLiant BL2x220c G5 fits in twice as much processing for Web 2.0.

  • Shadow703793
    Not bad. Good Idea.
    Reply
  • anonymous x
    that's nice, but can it run Crysis?
    Reply
  • crockdaddy
    Is this what Peter Jackson needed to get Vista to run as fast as XP? :p
    Reply
  • "Specifically, HP claims a 60% performance-per-watt advantage over a cluster of Dell PowerEdge 1955 servers"

    Right, compare a blade to a classical 1u or 2u server. Don't compare it to Dell's blade servers because it'll smoke the HPs 8 ways to sunday.
    Reply
  • Due to the efficiency of the power supplies and the solid-state disk drives, I would still think it would beat the Dell blade offerings in terms of performance per watt. But this is really a density play, not necessarily an efficiency play though it does beat just about any rack mount in that too. With Dell's engineering not pushing the envelope in blade hardware, it may be awhile before they can answer this. Just $6400 for two quad-core Xeon servers? That is also a price point other vendors (IBM, Sun) are going to be loathe to compete with. If I was Google or Yahoo, I'd by rooms full of these and retire all of that desktop hardware they are using for servers.
    Reply
  • razor512
    But will it blend?


    seems good but very expensive
    Reply
  • koreberg
    @Thranx

    The 1955 is not a rack mount server, that would be a 1950. 10 1955s fit in a 7u chassis, it is not their latest product, but it is in fact a blade.

    It would be a more equal comparison if they had chosen the dell m600 or m605, which is the new blade system. However there are numerous other reasons to go with HP.
    Reply
  • recones90
    Specifically, HP claims a 60% performance-per-watt advantage over a cluster of Dell PowerEdge 1955 servers"

    Yeah, compare it against DELL's previous generation of blades to get big numbers. I bet you that HP doesn't do so well against DELL's current generation of Blades (M600).
    Reply
  • aznguy0028
    why does every technology page/thread always have a Crysis joke in it? said and repeated so many times to the point of annoyance.
    Reply
  • markhahn
    why do vendors get off on this kind of engineering masturbation? people who are in the market for significant compute farms are simply not interested in paying more for this kind of absurd density. density, after all, does not improve price/performance, or power efficiency, or managability, or peak performance. it's just a number to brag about, and it's not all that impressive anyway (commodity parts can easily put 4 sockets in 1U, and thus 672/rack. such systems are cheap, commoditized without vendor lock-in, and yes, have more dimms/socket and 90% PSU's.)

    when I see actual blade installs, I always have to laugh, because they're usually some easily impressed PHB buying a penis substitute, which winds up with one chassis alone in a rack because the machineroom can't handle the power density.

    blades: just say no to boutique packaging of commodity parts.
    Reply