Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HP Launches Moonshot

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the everyone's-doing-it dept.

HP 168

New submitter linatux writes "HP has announced their 'Moonshot 1500 server' — up to 1,800 servers per 47U rack are supported. The tech certainly seems to be an advance on what is currently available — will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet?" From Phoronix: "Moonshot began with Calxeda-based ARM SoCs, but in the end HP settled for Intel Atom processors. Released today were HP's Moonshot system based on the Intel Atom S1200. Hewlett-Packard claims that their Moonshot System uses 89% less energy, 80% less space, 77% less cost, and 97% less complexity than traditional servers."

cancel ×

168 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only thing about Atom proccessors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398061)

Atom processors are notoriously slow. You can't play 3d video games on them.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398089)

And we all know that datacenter servers are used only for running the front-end of 3D games. Oh no, this product must be DOOMED!

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398109)

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/144778-atom-vs-cortex-a15-vs-krait-vs-tegra-3-which-mobile-cpu-is-the-most-power-efficient

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398583)

Show me all the ARM Cortex CPU's with hardware virtualization support and ECC memory controllers.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (3, Informative)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398675)

"Moonshot" refers to their business strategy. This is a 'moonshot', high-risk, high-reward, but more than likely to just go into the crapper like pretty much everything except their calculators and printers.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398709)

I think SOC for data centers makes a lot of sense.

Microcontroller and SOC tech is still catching up to current CPUs, but they have a major advantage of cramming just about everything on the mobo into the chip.

In a decade or so we may well be looking at today's data centers the way we currently look at ENIAC.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (5, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398963)

Well the Cortex A15 has both [arm.com] .

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398201)

Lots of datacenter servers are mostly used for holding a connection open while it waits for the database to spit back a resultset. Hense products like these.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (3, Informative)

Lisias (447563) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398101)

Atom processors are notoriously slow. You can't play 3d video games on them.

Yes, you can. :-)

I managed to play Orbiter [ucl.ac.uk] on a reasonable resolution (1280x1024x16) and got an acceptable (barely, I admit) framerate on my Atom 330 box. That it's my Media Center and torrent server, by the way.

Granted, the Game of the Year will not run on this setup. :-)

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398957)

Is this 330 coupled with an NVidia ION? Because, I have a Atom 330 with Ion chipset and an Atom 525 with the integrated Intel graphics. The 330 is much snappier as a desktop system than the 525, even though it should be less quick. Personally, I think the low-voltage low-end Celerons are a much better deal than anything Atom and I've been an Atom fan for a long time.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (0)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398133)

1st gen atom netbook with GMA945 here, I can play most but the latest 3D games on it. I would probably better served with an A15, but it did not existed then, and serve me well today. Try Warzone 2100, really cool game. Crysis is a no touch, but im not in ghe demographic anyway. A while world exist outside your basement... just sayin'!

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (0)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398137)

Very sorry for the typos... grammar nazis please abstain.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (5, Funny)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398333)

Nazi is a proper noun and thus must be capitalized.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398383)

And yet you don't know how to spell "capitalised". Bloody colonials...

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (0)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398449)

thank you.

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43399289)

The OED prefers "capitalize" with a variant spelling of "capitalise". Bloody whipper snappers...

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398647)

Nazi is a proper noun and thus must be capitalized.

Certainly. But attributive words preceding a proper noun are also capitalized. So it is "Grammar Nazi," not "grammar Nazi."

Re:Only thing about Atom proccessors (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398763)

nazi's.

Have fun.

And accomplishes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398077)

65% less per core

Missing stat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398085)

" ...89% less energy, 80% less space, 77% less cost, and 97% less complexity than traditional servers."

Yet no mention of performance compared to that same "traditional" sever. I'm going to guess about 60-80% less.

Re:Missing stat... (1)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398159)

Just how much time your multi threaded server waiting for storage or cache miss? Hint, a lot!

Re:Missing stat... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398665)

I can't help thinking here that HP screwed up their courage, took a deep breath, and did the wrong thing. Seems to me the prevailing argument ended up as "PC compatible" thus going with the weak-and-hot atom. But these servers are all going to be running Linux, so where's the argument for PC compabitility?

Re:Missing stat... (1)

mug funky (910186) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398845)

atoms run linux just fine.

Re:Missing stat... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399077)

I think his argument boils down to "ARM runs linux better".
Whether that is true or not is up for debate.

Does it compute? (5, Insightful)

Solid StaTe_1 (446406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398087)

Low power and massive amounts of parallel cores is alright, but does it compute? How do these low power servers benchmark against EC2 or equivalent? This article didn't talk benchmarks. Maybe you get all these gains in consumed power, cost, space etc... because it is 90% less powerful than competitors.

Re:Does it compute? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398105)

This is FLAG is Florida.

This is the advanced organization in Clearwater.

This is Saint Hill Manor, headquarters in the United Kingdom and once Ron's home.

This is the International Ecclesiastic Management Centre.

This is the Upper Levels and Combined Organization in Los Angeles.

This is Celebrity Centre International, in Hollywood.

This is the Scientology College in England.

And *this* is the Freewinds, Scientology's advanced religious retreat.

Re:Does it compute? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398119)

In fact, there are thousands of Scientology organizations, missions, and groups spanning the globe on every continent and over one hundred countries of Earth, and millions of Scientologists to be your friends and help you help yourself and others.

Re:Does it compute? (0, Offtopic)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398453)

Scientology is a slave cult, pure and simple. It has no place in a world of free and thinking beings.

Re:Does it compute? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398497)

Since Scientology is relatively new, you may hear the question asked, "Is Scientology a bonafide religion?" Let me assure you, it is.

According to more than 65 court decisions around the world...

"The conclusion that it, the church of Scientology, is a religious institution entitled to tax exemption is irresistible." - High Court of Australia

"This court finds that Scientology is a religion, within the meaning of the First Amendment." - United States District Court (Central District of California)

That Scientology is a bonafide religion is indisputable, as determined repeatedly by courts the world over, including the United States Supreme Court.

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398559)

Wow, you can quote Wikipedia. So can I:

In other countries, notably Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status although Churches are allowed.

In any event, all you've really shown is that some countries recognise Scientology as an official Collective Fantasy with a Distinctive Name/Logotype.

(In other news, a court can just as easily rule that the sky is green. Which, as we all know, instantly causes the heavens to change colour in order to comply.)

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398585)

One other thing:

The script you're obviously working from also supposes that I'll be impressed by the phrase "real religion" or "bona fide religion".

Since I know that *all* religion is *false* religion, what you've really just said to me is, "Scientology is a real, bona fide, honest-to-goodness pack of fantasy and lies". Which is a statement I can find little fault with.

Nice to see that we agree on that point, at least.

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398657)

"No place in a world of free and thinking beings" - you could equally say that for any religion, Christianity, Judaism and Islam among them. At some point I hope that humanity will grow up and not need a father figure any more. That will be the indication of our adulthood. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening in my lifetime.

Re:Does it compute? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398697)

"No place in a world of free and thinking beings" - you could equally say that for any religion, Christianity, Judaism and Islam among them.

I do. (Especially the Abrahamic religions.)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this.

Re:Does it compute? (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398165)

I hear the Freewinds runs on circular logic. Screw nuclear power, you've got free energy forever with that stuff!

Re:Does it compute? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398301)

You have a friend. He worked for half a century in a violent and often unkind world to open the gate for you. We are here to help you to put yourself on the trail that leads up.

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398443)

You are here to practise mind control, vacuuming-out of wallets and bank accounts, and that disarming, boyish Tom Cruise grin.

BTW, I have a friend who says your friend is not necessary. My friend says each of us has senses and a brain, and it is up to each of us to use these as tools to discover Truth, and that each of us is responsible for his or her own liberation.

Furthermore, my friend says anyone claiming to offer you salvation provided you take their word *on faith alone* is a charlatan.

My friend's name was Siddharta Gautama, and he never claimed to be anything other than a man who thought he'd found Truth, and who invited others to test this Truth for themselves.

Did Ron Hubbard ever invite you to *test* for yourself? No, he did not. He insisted, as his successors continue to do, that you accept his dogma without question. Therefore, Ron Hubbard was a charlatan.

Zontar's Laws of RealityTruth:

1. Never trust anyone who tells you not to think for yourself.

2. Never trust anybody named 'Ron'. (This has worked so far for me with regard to Hubbard, Paul, and Bradford.)

2 is optional. 1 is not. Otherwise, you're someone's slave
AND I AM NOT AND NEVER WILL BE YOUR SLAVE, MOTHERFUCKER.

And yes, I hassle slavers, er, Scientologists whenever the opportunity arises.

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398519)

2. Never trust anybody named 'Ron'. (This has worked so far for me with regard to Hubbard, Paul, and Bradford.)

You can trust Ron Paul. You may not agree with him, but if nothing else he seems to very reliably do what he says he believes in.

AC because I know better than to say anything nice about Ron Paul and back sass some one with such a low UID on /. :)

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398571)

Like Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard always has stated that he is "just a man" but he has influenced millions of lives for the better. (source [youtube.com] )

Re:Does it compute? (1, Offtopic)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398689)

Nice way to sidestep the point.

The Buddha asked us to use our minds and senses to discover truth. The Buddha: "Don't believe what I say because I say so; you must test it for yourself, before it can be true."

L. Ron asked us to believe in funky space aliens a zillion years old. L. Ron: "Believe what I say. Because I say so. And don't listen to yourself."

If both of these guys showed up at my doorstep today, I know which one I'd be more inclined to invite in for tea.

There's also the inconvenient little fact that L. Ron stated explicitly and unambiguously that he was setting out to design the "perfect" cult, and did just exactly that. He even managed to take in J.W. Campbell (or maybe Campbell was in on it, I've never been able to decide).

Then he laughed all the way to the bank.

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398735)

Actually one of the fundamental creeds of Scientology is "what is true is what's true for you." - L. Ron Hubbard

Basically, Scientology believes in the same things as Buddhism, except it's also based on science.

Re:Does it compute? (1)

mug funky (910186) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398857)

volcanoes with nukes in them! that's totally science!

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398879)

Actually one of the fundamental creeds of Scientology is "what is true is what's true for you." - L. Ron Hubbard

Ron was not talking about liberation, you idiot, he was talking about how to brainwash people like you.

Basically, Scientology believes in the same things as Buddhism, except it's also based on science.

Dog vomit like this is just plain fucking twisted.

Buddhism says Truth is all around us and we have only to see it with our own eyes and senses. Scientology says it's all a lie, and that they're the only ones knowing the truth.

Scientology says there's a bunch of secrets you have to pay them for. Buddhism says there are no secrets.

Night and day.

And there is no "science" in Scientology. It's complete batshit insanity that someone just made up.

Re:Does it compute? (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398213)

This is 1800 servers per rack, each a dual-core 2.0GHz 64bit Atom processor with 8GB RAM. It has a custom low-latency redundant mesh network between the nodes. For workloads like Hadoop it should be outstanding. If they're priced right I could see them including this as a type of machine in their cloud. 3,600 cores per rack, vs Xeon at 768 cores per rack (blades). This could be interesting.

Re:Does it compute? (3, Interesting)

greatpatton (1242300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398455)

No this type of node is not appropriate for Hadoop. First of all Hadoop is all about data locality when you run it on physical hardware (if you really need performance), and this is not the case here. Moreover 8G of RAM can be quite a limitation for many Hadoop related task (Hbase node will require more). Today you can have blade system with 2000 core per rack with AMD, why if cores matters would you limit yourseld to Intel CPU?

Re:Does it compute? (2)

CadentOrange (2429626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398761)

Today you can have blade system with 2000 core per rack with AMD, why if cores matters would you limit yourseld to Intel CPU?

I imagine that the power draw and corresponding cooling requirements of that rack stuffed with AMD cores will be significantly higher than the Intel one.

Re:Does it compute? (2)

epiphani (254981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399125)

Except for a few problems:

Hadoop tops out around 4000-6000 nodes, then you run into serious scalability issues in the jobtracker and HDFS scalability. Granted, with HDFS federation and YARN these should improve, but today you can't build this wider than a few racks without spending a good chunk of time doing some significant hadoop engineering.

Second, disk. Where's the disk? Hadoop needs disk. Hadoop likes disk. Disk likes hadoop. Hadoop likes lots and lots of disk. Nice, you've built a 6 watt SoC. Now just put six 10 watt 1TB drives beside it and I'll be happy. Oh, and make sure the disk controller can do spindle speed on all six.

Re:Does it compute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43399285)

Where's the disk?

HP will also be delighted to sell you a nice 3PAR to go with it.

I want one or two... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398099)

Sounds sweet!!

Re:I want one or two... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398855)

Subject: I want one or two

Start with a HP Proliant Microserver 40L [hp.com] : all in all, a 4 bay non-hotswap low power home NAS for about $200 (HDD-es not included) - or make it a media center, or whatever you fancy at that spec.
I reckon you can have one or two at that reasonable price.

Sounds sweet!!

Biggest advantage... the microserver does not sound at all... it's virtually silent

Too little, too lame (2, Informative)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398107)

HP tried this with Transmeta a while back, and produced blades that completely sucked - WAY too slow. Individual machines on blades are dead, unless you need HPC type power, and Atom ain't that. If you need to squeeze 1800 limp servers into a rack, VMWare and its children are already there.

Sorry HP, you suck. Go back to making shitty printers, and then get out of the way. Hopefully your corpse will provide the fertilizer for some new market leader to grow from.

Re:Too little, too lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398157)

Wow, you sound like a real industry expert, someone I'd certainly trust to evaluate new technological innovations.
No one could possibly ever need microservers [eetimes.com] for anything.

Re:Too little, too lame (2)

putaro (235078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398827)

There's a difference between a microserver and cramming 1800 of them into a rack. A product like this comes down to cost efficiency. Is this cheaper than an equivalent amount of Intel/AMD based computing? If it's not cheaper on the hardware, how much floorspace does it save? How much does your floorspace and electricity have to cost to make this worthwhile? What's your workload that requires this thing?

Re:Too little, too lame (1, Funny)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398175)

Hopefully your corpse will provide the fertilizer for some new market leader to grow from.

I hope this is a reference to ender's game trilogy. Let me know!

English - do you speak it? (-1, Troll)

mhotchin (791085) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398117)

"uses 97% less complexity"

*twitch*

Would somebody please find the marketers/editors that wrote this and shoot them? THXBYE

Re:English - do you speak it? (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398183)

Would somebody please find the marketers/editors that wrote this and shoot them? THXBYE

Hi. I'm part of the engineering team tasked with tracking down and eliminating people upon request, who have managed to slight someone else on the internet. We've logged your request and will get to it as quickly as possible. However, due to our limited budget and the unexpected popularity of our service, the high volume of requests will delay our response time. We currently estimate that we'll be able to service your request on October 27th, 2238, at 8:00 pm.

Also, our records indicate that you have an appointment with us on June 27th, 2027, at 3:35pm. Please be prompt. The internet as you know it depends on it.

Re:English - do you speak it? (5, Interesting)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398419)

But in all seriousness, this is a great idea for crowd sourcing.

Acquire startup funding and open a website for sponsors and volunteers. You could run it on TOR and pay the volunteers via bitcoin.

Donations are weighted depending on the amount donated, people could vote for the target they most wanted addressed first. The balances could just continue to grow until a volunteer accepts the job. Of course it would have to be a COD service and some sort of clear proof would be required, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

You could probably even get corporate sponsorship.

Re:English - do you speak it? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398801)

But in all seriousness, this is a great idea for crowd sourcing.

It was a joke... the idea of someone taking it seriously is rather chilling. That it's been up-modded doubly-so.

Re:English - do you speak it? (1)

mug funky (910186) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398871)

if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.

Re:English - do you speak it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398829)

Yeah, especially since he said shoot them. Not kill them.

Think nerf or water guns. The shooters might still get in trouble with the law, though probably not as big trouble.

But imagine if every day some random person shot you or your car or house with a nerf gun.

Re:English - do you speak it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398189)

Marketing and marketers now represents about a third of our resources. I say we have a zombie infestation on our way!

Re:English - do you speak it? (1)

mug funky (910186) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398877)

a third?

maybe we need to construct an Ark?

"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet?" (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398125)

Whenever slashdot asks "Will it be enough?" what do we say everybody? NO! We say N-O. No.

HP has been attracting fail like it's a government project with unlimited funding and no congressional oversight. I mean seriously, we may be breaking into new physics here with the strong attractive force that all things HP have to all things Fail. And no technology is going to fix that, because the ultimate source of the bogon radiation is (wait for it) HP senior management. They'll figure out a way to screw this up, trust me. They could have just discovered the Holy Grail and they'd still somehow figure a way to botch it so instead of getting eternal youth, we're stuck with an endless series of ever more-expensive drinking glasses that can only hold certain types of beverages and occasionally explode for no reason.

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398185)

When did we start saying nitric oxide?

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (3, Funny)

rekoil (168689) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398193)

So...former HP customer, or former employee?

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398243)

Or one of the ousted CEOs or board members? Hum, I could almost believe Leo was a girl in training.

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398195)

I'm guessing you haven't actually used HP servers or compared them to the competition. In my experience they completely kick Dell's butt, and give IBM a real run for their money, at much lower cost. I evaluated a ProLiant Gen8 and the manageability features were pretty impressive. The thing can update it's firmware and send SNMP traps, etc, from bare metal, without an OS.

Granted, HP had some crappy CEOs, and on the low-end consumer stuff they race to the bottom with everyone else, but their servers are serious and arguably industry-leading. They also sell more PCs than anyone anywhere, unless you start counting every iPod touch as a "computer."

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (5, Insightful)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398597)

I'll absolutely second this - HP's servers kick ass, quite frankly. They've had a few pretty major problems in recent years (P400 and P800 array controllers were absolute pieces of shit from a reliability standpoint, and the P410 STILL doesn't work quite right with SATA drives, though it rocks with SAS disks), but overall the engineering that goes into HP servers puts them well ahead of their competition, from what I've experienced. I've used Dell, IBM, white box, and HP, on the scale of "hundreds to thousands" of each brand, stretching back 10+ years.

The HP's have been more reliable, more configurable, more robust (yes, this is different from reliable), more manageable, and FAR better supported. There's a reason companies pay a premium for HP hardware, and it's because it pays for itself many over during the life of the hardware.

There are companies and applications that don't need that kind of reliability and run on shoddy white-box hardware... think Google, Facebook, etc. There are others, particularly stateful services like telephony and conferencing, that depend on reliable hardware. For those like that, servers like what HP provides will always be in demand. So long as HP maintains their focus on engineering in the server space, they won't be going anywhere soon.

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398719)

more robust (yes, this is different from reliable)

What is the difference between robust and reliable?

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398979)

Yeah, HP servers weren't bad after they bought Compaq and pretty much abandoned the old line of HP servers.

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43399169)

Yeah, HP servers weren't bad after they bought Compaq and pretty much abandoned the old line of HP servers.

Hey! That's enough of that give-credit-where-credit-is-due crap. This is HP's spotlight. After all, they paid for it.

Re:"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398407)

I dunno.

The HP P4000s SANs are pretty nice when compared with comparable equipment.

Of course, they got them by buying LeftHand.

But yeah, long gone are the days of the solid Laserjet 4250 days with millions of prints that made them worth refurbishing.

Will the upgrade be called... (1)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398129)

The Money Shot?

Re:Will the upgrade be called... (1)

Pale Dot (2813911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398745)

Why did they call it Moonshot anyway? Do they mean it has the computing power that NASA used to send Neil and Buzz to the moon? I have a more powerful device in my pocket.

Re:Will the upgrade be called... (3, Funny)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398795)

I have a more powerful device in my pocket.

I thought you were just glad to see me.

Specs for the interested (5, Interesting)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398151)

From the HP Site: "The HP Moonshot 1500 Chassis has 45 hot-pluggable servers installed and fits into 4.3U. The density comes in part from the low-energy, efficient processors. The innovative chassis design supports 45 servers, 2 network switches, and supporting components."

Each pluggable unit support 1x 2GHZ intel atom S1200 series cpus (2x core, 4x thread), up to 1 dimm @ 8gb, and one SFF sata drive. That gives you 90 cores/180 threads, 360GB's in 4.3u.

For comparison a 6RU cisco UCS chasis can put down up to 160 Cores / 320 threads, 4TB of memory. Those are high performance Xeon cores. Not sure on the $$$ per compute/memory between the two.

The really big question is are there enough use cases for that many "thin" servers. At 2 cores and 8GB of ram you are very thing by modern standards and there is 0 opportunity for vertical growth.

Re:Specs for the interested (1)

thedarknite (1031380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398347)

It looks like a decent option for hosting companies to sell dedicated web servers to people, or internally for a company that is running virtual desktops

Re:Specs for the interested (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398413)

I don't really understand the market for something like this either. When the S1200 was launched, Intel was careful to point out that if you try to scale it up as a cheap alternative to E5/E7 Xeons, the economics and power consumption of the S1200 (let alone the complexity of an order of magnitude more servers to manage) is not favourable. Totally understandable, as Intel would be foolish to cannibalize their own Xeon market.

Having said that, I do like the S1200, but more for something like a low traffic VPN gateway, where you want IPMI (which is orthogonal to the actual CPU, but due to the positioning of the S1200 as a server chip, will be easy to find in conjunction with the S1200) and the added reliability of ECC memory, but really won't use any of the extra horsepower or expandability (and cost and power usage) you'd get from a real Xeon.

Re:Specs for the interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398717)

They can do more than low-traffic VPNs. The Soekris Net6501 w/ an Atom E600 should pump at least 100Mb/s as an IPSec gateway. The new S1200s have more cache, faster clock rates, faster DRAM, and sport AES-NI and similar acceleration instructions.

If you think you need more oomph for a VPN gateway, you're doing it wrong.

"will it be enough to revive HP's server fleet?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398203)

Really - do you even know anything about the HP server line? Are you aware that HP servers (ProLiant - from Compaq) outsell the next 5 competitors - combined? What exactly are you expecting to be "revived"?

450 servers, not 1800 (4, Informative)

thedarknite (1031380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398239)

Someone at Phoronix really needs to learn basic math. The Chassis is 4.3U and hold 45 of these Moonshot servers, so a 47U rack could fit 10 chassis' for a total of 450 servers.

Re:450 servers, not 1800 (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398423)

Someone at Phoronix really needs to learn basic math. The Chassis is 4.3U and hold 45 of these Moonshot servers, so a 47U rack could fit 10 chassis' for a total of 450 servers.

Yeah, I think they got confused between threads and servers. Each server has a 2 core CPU, each core can "handle" 2 hyper threads. So 450 servers * 2 cpus * 2 threads = 1800

Not nearly as impressive.

Re:450 servers, not 1800 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398491)

They probably meaned to write "threads" and not "servers".

Re:450 servers, not 1800 (1)

thedarknite (1031380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398639)

1800 threads isn't particularly impressive in an entire rack considering filling the same rack space with blade servers you can easily get over 2000 threads.

Re:450 servers, not 1800 (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399215)

And threads alone aren't that interesting a metric anyway. A single UltraSPARC T3 has 16 cores, 128 threads. They work in up to 4-socket configurations, so that's 512 per board. Four boards will give you 2048 threads. The 4-socket boards come in 5U boxes, so that's 9 per 47U rack, giving 4608 threads. A high-end GPU has 512 hardware threads and you can stick 4 of them in a single desktop and get your 2048 threads. How does a box full of GPUs or a rack full of T3s compare to this system? The thread counts give you absolutely no information to determine that.

Re:450 servers, not 1800 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43399201)

Someone at Phoronix really needs to learn basic math. The Chassis is 4.3U and hold 45 of these Moonshot servers, so a 47U rack could fit 10 chassis' for a total of 450 servers.

Sorry, that was my bad. Fed the data into a Moonshot cluster to calculate the "server" count, and forgot to disable the marketing daemon.

One would think I would have caught that. Stupid thing won't shut up about itself until you turn it off. You should see the audit trail...and here I thought Hollywood had a narcissist problem...

Seamicro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398309)

seems like a few years old Seamicro http://www.seamicro.com

mod doYwN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398329)

th4t FrreBSD is [goat.cx]

Wait, what? Complexity metrics? (2)

Gazzonyx (982402) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398567)

"[...]and 97% less complexity than traditional servers."
Wait, what? How in the world did they measure this? I'm seriously curious as to this dubious number.

Re:Wait, what? Complexity metrics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43399075)

"[...]and 97% less complexity than traditional servers."

Wait, what? How in the world did they measure this? I'm seriously curious as to this dubious number.

I had pretty much the same thought.

Drastically increasing the number of servers does not sound like a way to drastically decrease complexity. If this really does simplify things, I'd like to know how.

Re:Wait, what? Complexity metrics? (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399079)

"[...]and 97% less complexity than traditional servers."

Wait, what? How in the world did they measure this? I'm seriously curious as to this dubious number.

"Now with 67.3% more dubious numbers than traditional advertising copy!"

Not at all Ridiculous (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399317)

"Hi, yeah, could I get a number 2 with a coke? Oh, and large fries. And can you reduce the complexity on that? By how much? I don't know, 100%? Oh, you can only do 97? Ok fine, I'll take that. Oh, and a chocolate shake."

Has Slashdot officially become a paid shill? (0)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398601)

Come one, I call shenanigans on this one. Seriously, a site where the majority of the submissions seem to take at least a day or more to propagate to actually being posted has a post about a random new HP product where the only really informative link is to what basically amounts to a press release hosted on their own site?

I understand things are tough all over and you gotta make money to survive, but do they really think their readers are that stupid?

Re:Has Slashdot officially become a paid shill? (1)

Maudib (223520) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398687)

I doubt they would pay to have a post go live at midnight.

Re:Has Slashdot officially become a paid shill? (1)

linatux (63153) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399225)

mid-afternoon in GNU Zealand :-)

Re:Has Slashdot officially become a paid shill? (1)

linatux (63153) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398695)

I don't know about Slashdot's priorities when it comes to deciding what makes the cover, but I submitted in good faith.

I'm not a fan of HP by any means & we have truck-loads of their servers at work. The concept for this sounded interesting & maybe there is a place for it in the 'cloud'.
What we really need at work is big kick-ass servers like IBM's new Power 7 machines (IBM - please direct debit my account ASAP)

Re:Has Slashdot officially become a paid shill? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398747)

Ok, mod me into oblivion if I'm wrong, I guess every blue moon there is someone with a 5 digit id as a "first time submitter" ;) I was just rather surprised they posted a story with a link to their own article that was posted a few hours before the referencing one... last couple of times I had a story posted it was at least a day after I submitted it. And of course the HP AD I SAW next to it didn't help the situation one bit...

Re:Has Slashdot officially become a paid shill? (1)

linatux (63153) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399213)

:-) 1st time accepted, 2nd or 3rd submission I think. Sad how the quality of stories seems to have declined over the last few years, but the quality of the posts & the turns they take still sometimes surprise me. Without their seasoned contributors, this site would fade away in no time. I hope the people running it recognise that.

Moonshot? More like Longshot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43398731)

subject says it

Plenty of use cases (1)

DoomSprinkles (1933266) | about a year and a half ago | (#43398791)

Considering the fact that only a small percentage of even IT people understand just how much server horsepower is required for many typical tasks that environments require of them, I don't expect a huge demand for these Moonshot servers. The specs however are very well suited for many applications used in small to medium sized businesses. And when you get to those who would see appropriate use for these, the price of the chassis is very ugly.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?