Racks vs. pile of PCs
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Ziegler, Scott scott_ziegler at merck.comWed Aug 14 04:42:55 PDT 2002
- Previous message: Windows HPC
- Next message: Racks vs. pile of PCs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
One advantage that comes to mind, although it may not be worth $6000, is when you have 20 PC's stacked, according to Murphy, the bottom one will fail first. The rack mounted version will be much easier to service a failed unit than the stack version. Just something to consider. Message: 2 From: "David Mathog" <mathog at mendel.bio.caltech.edu> To: beowulf at beowulf.org Subject: Racks vs. pile of PCs Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:02:53 -0700 Racks sure look nice and there is no question that they are space efficient, but I'm really starting to wonder if they are such a great idea for a smallish cluster (<=20 nodes) in those situations where there is enough space for a classic pile of PCs. I mean, what other advantages do they have besides those two to offset their many disadvantages? Racks better than piles: 1. Space efficiency. 2. Aesthetics (racks look cool) Piles better than racks (these are not orthogonal): 1. Internal space constraints 2. CPU/motherboard Cooling. This follows from [1]. 3. Motherboard/CPU options. This follows from [1]. With a few exceptions most motherboard/CPU combinations will fit into a standard ATX case - good luck getting a 2.4 Ghz P4 into a 1U. 4. Initial purchase price for equivalent performance. 5. Maintenance costs (rack parts tend to be nonstandard and expensive to replace, for instance, 1U power supplies). Other factors? I estimate that for a small cluster (<1 rack's worth of equipment) with node guts (mobo,CPU,disk,ram) costing <= $1200 the racked version will cost at least 20-30% more than the piled version. So if a piled 20 node cluster costs $24000, the equivalent racked version will be at least $30000. $6000 seems a lot to pay for no extra performance. If the "guts" were much more expensive the additional rack costs would, in theory be a lower percentage. In practice, it is my impression that the ratio is no lower because the vendors charge even more for the racked versions of high performance nodes. Comments? Regards, David Mathog mathog at caltech.edu Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list Beowulf at beowulf.org http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf End of Beowulf Digest ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by e-mail and then delete it. ==============================================================================
- Previous message: Windows HPC
- Next message: Racks vs. pile of PCs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
