There are still some applications that haven't been designed to scale to multiple servers, so one large monolithic server is required to scale that application performance up.
When it comes to consolidation virtualization, which easily scales to multiple servers, I think multiple 2-socket servers hit the price/performance "sweet spot" and 4-socket servers are less cost-effective. 8+ socket consolidation virtualization hosts are an irresponsible waste of money and anybody using 8-socket servers in that particular situation are simply doing it to appear impressive and not considering price/performance, or have a simple-minded "bigger is better" mentality.
My friend works at a retro TV station here in the US. All they do is read shows from magnetic tapes and copies them bit-by-bit into huge multi-GB files on harddrives. They have dual quad-core systems running each instance. The cpus hover at 2-3% usage, with cooling fans in each system spinning at 20k rpms so that it sounds like a wind tunnel when you walk into the room. Absolutely sickens me. And the CEO is in the "hall-of-fame" at the college he graduated from...
Correct. the Octal CPU market is shrinking fast now that we have 10 and 12 core machines. VMware only recently update vSphere to be able to work with 160 logical CPUs. Linux is able to go up to 255 logical CPUs I believe (x86-64).
Rack space can get expensive pretty quickly. When you're renting out space per-rack at a colocation facility, you want to consolidate as much as possible.
Power efficiency is another. More cpus per server mean less supporting hardware. Imagine virtualizing 200 or so Atoms with a single 4x 10-core Xeon setup. Atom may well be efficient, but getting rid of 200 chipsets, LAN adapters and GPUs will save quite a bit of energy.
Big companies try to run virtualized environments (think VMWare) where many applications run on the same server. Different applications tend to use CPU at different times so end up with much higher average usage of your hardware. My employer (a huge bank) often expect a 4-10 times benefit from running on servers that are bigger than this. It also simplifies administration.
The purchase cost of these servers are often a relatively small part of the actual cost. Rack space, power, heat, administration and network connectivity are important considerations. And the RAM cost will often exceed the CPU cost.
I happen to work on an application that needs all data in memory (huge Monte-Carlo model), even a microsecond latency for accessing data would kill performance. This means that I run on a 32-core Nehalem EX with 512Gb RAM and I use all of it. The 512Gb RAM is about 2/3rds of the whole server, partly because it is a lot of RAM and partly because 16Gb DIMMs are a lot more expensive per Gb that desktop memory.
There are two reasons: 1. Workloads that scale poorly on more systems. If your workload scales perfectly, you can get faster results cheaper by going with more and somewhat slower processors. 2. When your workload will work on a (let's say) 4-processor system with the faster processors, but only on a 8-processor system using the slow processors. In this case, a base 4-processors system with expensive processors might be cheaper than an 8-processors system with cheap processors and offer similar or better performance.
That is, some workloads scale perfectly well over more servers, others scale perfectly well over more processors, and others don't scale well enough over more servers/processors. If your workload is the latter, you want the fastest processors around. And by the way, some things are really really influenced by performance (see stock market manipulation games when you being half a millisecond faster than the competition means you can earn more money). In the grand scheme of things, the hardware price might be a small consideration (or might be the driving factor). If you absolutely need that performance (and can gain financial use from it), those processors are cheap at whatever price.
for VM this monster will replace a lot of servers, probably a hundred or more. depending on your version of vmware. i think the later versions will let you oversubscribe a host
if you have a database server that hosts tens of thousands of users at a time than going from 2 6 core CPU to 4 10 core CPU's means 24 threads vs 80 threads at a time can be processed.
Especially if you are counting on getting benchmarks that includes Windows 2008 R2 -- as you can see here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2529956/us-en -- Intel and Microsoft apparently forgot to cross-test their products.
While both are clearly at blame here, this is a MAJOR black eye to the Intel validation department, I mean how can you realease a new processor that do not work with the most sold OS in the world...embarrasing to say the least, and makes you wonder what else they missed
Well, some of the customers I work with have some very specific work load. They do research and development and for them it is worth to have the best performance when they buy the system…
About price, yes and no, as with 64 memory slot you can get a good price per gigabit compared to a system with only 18 slots or so if you need around 256GB or more memory. So there it can be good, but again specific.
But you are right, for most Virtualization system I would rather go with 2U system like the Dell R710 who fit a good balance of CPU power and memory options at a better price. You can have them redundant so you can lose one or more to distribute your loads.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
Back to Article
Barfo - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
First!quiksilvr - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Imbecile.Moving on, I like seeing Intel push forward, but those prices are quite high.
mariush - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
I'd be happy to be just low enough to make AMD drop prices on their 12 and 16 cores processors.Hoping to be able to afford a 7-900$ quad G34 motherboard and 4 x 500-700$ 12/16 core processors in the near future.
MySchizoBuddy - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
AMD has 16 core processors? when did that happenMrSpadge - Sunday, May 1, 2011 - link
He may be referring to the coming Bulldozers with 6 and 8 modules.MrS
H8ff0000 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Shouldn't this be a ban-able offense on every forum / comment-enabled website? Childishness abounds.tipoo - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
It should be.taltamir - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
I concurSlash3 - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
I second the concurrance.Griswold - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Eliminate them. All of them.Speed3mon - Friday, April 8, 2011 - link
Gay!agreenbhm - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
That thing is weak!Ushio01 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
The E3 Sandy bridge xeons have hyper threading so should be 4/8 in the table.JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Apparently the PDF is incorrect... they only list 4 (or 2), but I'll update the table.(http://newsroom.intel.com/servlet/JiveServlet/down...
dcollins - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
What is purpose of such high-end, high price CPUs? I am honestly curious, not being sarcastic.It seems to me that buying more cheaper servers would give better performance for the money. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Arnulf - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Lower combined power usage ?Lower heat output and fewer related heat management issues ?
Smaller volume ?
Easier management (only one system to maintain rather than a number of separate systems) ?
I'm sure one could think of more potential upsides, but there are also potential downsides (such as "single dead CPU = dead server").
cdillon - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
There are still some applications that haven't been designed to scale to multiple servers, so one large monolithic server is required to scale that application performance up.When it comes to consolidation virtualization, which easily scales to multiple servers, I think multiple 2-socket servers hit the price/performance "sweet spot" and 4-socket servers are less cost-effective. 8+ socket consolidation virtualization hosts are an irresponsible waste of money and anybody using 8-socket servers in that particular situation are simply doing it to appear impressive and not considering price/performance, or have a simple-minded "bigger is better" mentality.
Concillian - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Sooo... like... all upper management then?
Iketh - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
My friend works at a retro TV station here in the US. All they do is read shows from magnetic tapes and copies them bit-by-bit into huge multi-GB files on harddrives. They have dual quad-core systems running each instance. The cpus hover at 2-3% usage, with cooling fans in each system spinning at 20k rpms so that it sounds like a wind tunnel when you walk into the room. Absolutely sickens me. And the CEO is in the "hall-of-fame" at the college he graduated from...yuhong - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Not all virtualization software even support 8-socket servers anyway, for example Hyper-V is limited to 64 logical processors.JohanAnandtech - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Correct. the Octal CPU market is shrinking fast now that we have 10 and 12 core machines. VMware only recently update vSphere to be able to work with 160 logical CPUs. Linux is able to go up to 255 logical CPUs I believe (x86-64).jihadjoe - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Rack space can get expensive pretty quickly. When you're renting out space per-rack at a colocation facility, you want to consolidate as much as possible.Power efficiency is another. More cpus per server mean less supporting hardware. Imagine virtualizing 200 or so Atoms with a single 4x 10-core Xeon setup. Atom may well be efficient, but getting rid of 200 chipsets, LAN adapters and GPUs will save quite a bit of energy.
mozartrules - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Big companies try to run virtualized environments (think VMWare) where many applications run on the same server. Different applications tend to use CPU at different times so end up with much higher average usage of your hardware. My employer (a huge bank) often expect a 4-10 times benefit from running on servers that are bigger than this. It also simplifies administration.The purchase cost of these servers are often a relatively small part of the actual cost. Rack space, power, heat, administration and network connectivity are important considerations. And the RAM cost will often exceed the CPU cost.
I happen to work on an application that needs all data in memory (huge Monte-Carlo model), even a microsecond latency for accessing data would kill performance. This means that I run on a 32-core Nehalem EX with 512Gb RAM and I use all of it. The 512Gb RAM is about 2/3rds of the whole server, partly because it is a lot of RAM and partly because 16Gb DIMMs are a lot more expensive per Gb that desktop memory.
Calin - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
There are two reasons:1. Workloads that scale poorly on more systems. If your workload scales perfectly, you can get faster results cheaper by going with more and somewhat slower processors.
2. When your workload will work on a (let's say) 4-processor system with the faster processors, but only on a 8-processor system using the slow processors. In this case, a base 4-processors system with expensive processors might be cheaper than an 8-processors system with cheap processors and offer similar or better performance.
That is, some workloads scale perfectly well over more servers, others scale perfectly well over more processors, and others don't scale well enough over more servers/processors. If your workload is the latter, you want the fastest processors around.
And by the way, some things are really really influenced by performance (see stock market manipulation games when you being half a millisecond faster than the competition means you can earn more money). In the grand scheme of things, the hardware price might be a small consideration (or might be the driving factor). If you absolutely need that performance (and can gain financial use from it), those processors are cheap at whatever price.
alent1234 - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
virtualization and huge databasesfor VM this monster will replace a lot of servers, probably a hundred or more. depending on your version of vmware. i think the later versions will let you oversubscribe a host
if you have a database server that hosts tens of thousands of users at a time than going from 2 6 core CPU to 4 10 core CPU's means 24 threads vs 80 threads at a time can be processed.
hellcats - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Can I have that bad boy when you're done testing?MrBuffet - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Especially if you are counting on getting benchmarks that includes Windows 2008 R2 -- as you can see here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2529956/us-en -- Intel and Microsoft apparently forgot to cross-test their products.While both are clearly at blame here, this is a MAJOR black eye to the Intel validation department, I mean how can you realease a new processor that do not work with the most sold OS in the world...embarrasing to say the least, and makes you wonder what else they missed
alent1234 - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
that's assuming you use WIndows 2008 R2 as your hypervisor. most people use vmware.JohanAnandtech - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Thx! Excellent feedback, will save us quite a bit of time and searching. We will talk this through with both MS and Intel.koinkoin - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Well, some of the customers I work with have some very specific work load. They do research and development and for them it is worth to have the best performance when they buy the system…About price, yes and no, as with 64 memory slot you can get a good price per gigabit compared to a system with only 18 slots or so if you need around 256GB or more memory. So there it can be good, but again specific.
But you are right, for most Virtualization system I would rather go with 2U system like the Dell R710 who fit a good balance of CPU power and memory options at a better price. You can have them redundant so you can lose one or more to distribute your loads.
pugster - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Our company is planning to buy a couple of blades but they have the older generation x56xx cpus. I hope that they have this available soon.Michael REMY - Sunday, April 10, 2011 - link
i'd like to see 3d benchmark performances....it should be awesome !