Cisco, of course, contends that UCS can work just as well in existing facilities. In the story, one mid-Atlantic value added reseller (VAR) talked about the challenges of installing UCS in existing data centers.

The mid-Atlantic VAR, who is affiliated with both HP and Cisco, agreed that Cisco UCS is a tougher sell into existing data center facilities, and that some Cisco gear is a harder sale than other Cisco gear. For example, Cisco’s rack server UCS can go into an existing data center more easily than the blade model because the rack doesn’t require the Nexus switch, he said.

Whether a customer already runs Cisco networking gear in the data center could be a big factor in the purchasing process. Those shops have already bought into the Cisco data center story at least to some extent, VARs said.

I took a briefing on the UCS news, which basically integrates the new Intel Nehalem and Nehalem-EX blade and rack servers into the product. It includes the company’s first four-socket servers, but does not yet include AMD-based servers.

“Intel is very clearly the performance leader, so we’re happy with Intel being our CPU provider,” Paul Durzan, a product director at Cisco, said.

And now, to the blah blah blah. When I and another reporter talked to Cisco, they sent along a PowerPoint presentation on the news. In addition to the slides, there were notes accompanying each one. On a slide at the end summarizing the news, the notes field starts off with “So why Cisco you ask” and then there are two bullet points, as follows:

• Improve business agility and performance
• Blah, blah, blah

Thanks for the laugh, Cisco!

“The sequential rise in mainstream and high-end client processors points to the new products, like Core i5 and Athlon II, that Intel and AMD were shipping into the market for the holiday buying season in the fourth quarter,” Shane Rau, director of personal computing semiconducters research at IDC, said. “What’s interesting there is that consumers were there to buy systems based on them and that OEMs were investing in them for future builds. At the same time, the sequential rise in server processors indicates that server OEMs are starting to see corporations come off the sidelines.”

In terms of market share, Intel is still dominating with 89.8% market share, compared to 10.2% for AMD. Though AMD did gain 0.6% market share in the fourth quarter of 2009, Intel gained 3.2% overall for the whole of 2009.

"I just can't do it captain, I don't have the power!"

This trend is the result of data center power constraints; IT folks simply don’t have abundant quantities of power to supply their servers any more, but still need to add more compute capacity somehow.

So, server vendors are on the hook to offer systems that operate on very little power, and every vendor wants the right to say they offer “the worlds most efficient” server. But it appears they hit the limit with the level of efficiency today’s x86 server chips can offer, so some vendors have moved on to PC chips.

For example, last week, Dell launched new servers with Taiwan-based Via Technologies Via Nano processors, which the companies say offer the best power efficiency of any processor on the market today. Prior to that, Intel’s Atom processors for notebook computers were launched in SuperMicro servers.

My response was, really? PC chips in servers? Sounds great if you only plan to run Tetris on your servers, because when you choose lower watt chips, you trade off performance.

But it appears certain markets are willing to make that compromise. According to Dell, their new Via Nano-based systems are designed for “hyper-scale customers in the search engine and Web hosting businesses…who typically choose general purpose 1U servers or low-end tower servers, and make compromises around the density, power, and/or manageability aspects associated with these alternatives.”

It will be interesting to see how far these PC-chip servers go, who adopts them and how Intel and AMD respond to the Via Nano, product-wise. Will Intel and AMD try to leapfrog Via’s Nano chip with something that consumes even less power? I’m going to take a guess and say, hell yeah. But really, how low can they go?

The European Commission (EC) slapped Intel with a $1.45 billion fine for violating EC Treaty antitrust rules against engaging anti-competitive practices that excludes competitors from the market.

The European Commissioner for Competition Policy stated throughout the period covered by the decision, Intel held at least 70% of the worldwide market in x86 server CPUs, and used anti-competitive practices to hold that position.

“The fact that Intel had such a large market share is not a problem in itself. What is a problem is that Intel abused its dominant position. Specifically, Intel used illegal anti-competitive practices to exclude essentially its only competitor, and thus reduce consumer choice, in the worldwide market for x86 chips,” the commissioner, Neelie Kroes, told press. “Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise.”

The EC found that Intel gave rebate to computer manufacturers who bought all, or almost all, of their x86 CPUs from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on the condition that it only sell computers with Intel x86 CPUs.

Intel also paid computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors’ x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products, according to the EC.

Intel also faces another anti-trust lawsuit, filed by AMD for similar anti-competitive practices in the U.S. The court date for that trial is in February 2010.

As expected, Intel’s CEO Paul Ottellini denied any wrongdoing and is appealing the decision. In a statement, Ottellini said, “As we go through the appeals process we plan to work with the Commission to ensure we’re in compliance with their decision… there should be no doubt whatsoever that Intel will continue to invest in the products and technologies that provide Europe and the rest of the world the industry’s best performing processors at lower prices.”

And some U.S. based legal pros issued statements today saying the EU’s fine was far too harsh.

“The EC’s use of huge fines against market-leading firms – fines calculated from a firm’s world-wide sales, not from harm to European consumers – discourages aggressive competition that benefits consumers,”  Ronald A. Cass, Chairman, Center for the Rule of Law, said in a statement. “Consumer harm should be the concern for competition law, and here instead consumers saw sharp declines in cost and increases in product quality – even Intel’s complaining rival, AMD, enjoyed historic success during the period it claims Intel’s actions foreclosed competition.”

But the manufacturers concerned by Intel’s conduct in the EC case – Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC – aren’t playing the violin for Intel right now, and reports say Intel’s closest competitor, AMD, is celebrating the EC’s decision.

And the EC’s commissioner doesn’t seem to feel bad about the massive fine either. In his closing statement to the press, he drew attention to Intel’s latest global advertising campaign, “Sponsors of Tomorrow,” in which Intel invites visitors to add their ‘vision of tomorrow’ to their website.

“Well, I can give my vision of tomorrow for Intel here and now: “obey the law,” Kroes said.

As large a fine as $1.45 billion is, it’s really a drop in the bucket for Intel; they reported $7.1 billion in revenue for the first quarter of 2009 alone,  so I doubt this will have any affect on their ability to churn out CPUs on the tick-tock cycle. The real issues for Intel is the tarnish the EC’s decision puts on them and that it takes the focus away from their technology – two side effects that are sure to help the competition gain some ground in the CPU market.

According to a report, Google let everyone see its design at a conference this week. The system was a 3.5 inch thick 2U system with two processors, two hard drives, and eight memory slots mounted on a motherboard built by Gigabyte. Google uses x86 processors from AMD and Intel, and the servers are powered by 12-volt batteries in case there’s a problem with the main source of electricity, according to the report.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/xgRWURIxgbU" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

We already knew that Google uses 12-volt power supplies for its servers, which the company says is more than 90% efficient compared with typical server efficiencies at or below 70%.

For the most part, Google runs these servers not out of brick and mortar data centers, but from those shipping containers that have become all the rage with vendors like Sun Microsystems , IBM, HP and Rackable Systems in recent years. Google was putting data centers in mobile containers long before those guys, and typically uses standard 1AAA shipping containers to house around 1,160 servers each, according to the report.

Currently, that number is at about 10%, but Waxman predicts it growing as “the world continues to embrace distributed grid cloud architectures from the net’s biggest names,” according to the story.

It’s important to note what Waxman considers a “mega data center:” Google, Amazon, Microsoft, “but also telcos doing hosting like AT&T and Verizon.” He further defined it as companies purchasing thousands of machines a month and putting them into megawatt data centers.

As the story points out, this growth only occurs if cloud computing takes hold and grows. Currently Google and Microsoft have put the brakes on data center construction, for data centers largely thought to be cloud computing-based.

Though HP has not made any official announcements regarding the addition of SSD, and Baetkey could not give any details about the release date or which servers will have them, he said SSD is a greener alternative to spinning hard disks because SSD’s have no moving parts that consume power.

Instead of having spinning parts like hard disks, SSD’s are based on flash memory, can be up to hundreds of times faster than hard drives and use less power than traditional hard drives.

Intel Corp., Samsung, STEC Inc., Violin Memory andTexas Memory System are all offering flash SSD products today. Around October of last year, Texas Memory introduced a 20 TB flash SSD module that delivers one million inputs/outputs per second (IOPS), theRamSan-5000, which is essentially an array of flash solid state disks designed for memory intensive workloads and is “designed from the chip level up for better reliability and performance than the types of flash used in low end markets,” according to executive vice president of Texas Memory, Woody Hutsell.

Up until the last year, Texas Memory only produced RAM based SSD because flash based SSD was too expensive to be viable on the market, Hutsell said. “But cost of the media has gone down, and the density has gone up, driven by the consumer electronics industry, so flash has become more competitive with SSD storage arrays.”

Some companies have already begun replacing their hard disks with SSDs to improve the speed of their servers, according to Jim Handy of Objective Analysis, but this is a pretty narrow slice of the market. Uptake is expected to grow; the IDC predicts SSD uptake in enterprise computing will pick up by 2010 and enterprise computing applications will grow from 12% of SSD revenue in 2007 to more than 50% by 2011, but others, including storage administrators, think mainstream adoption of SSD in enterprise data centers will take much longer.

In general though, flash SSDs are a good alternative to hard disk arrays in data centers that use 10,000-100,000 hard disks today, Handy said. “In such a system you might find 1-2% of the hard disks being replaced by SSDs in a ratio of one SSD for every ten hard disks or so.”

Still, if SSDs can bring better performance, lower power consumption, and a smaller footprint for a competitive price today, we will no doubt see more and more server vendors adding SSD options to their x86 boxes.

Gartner, Inc. reported this week that data centers are being attacked by processing cores at a rate their software, operating Systems and applications can’t handle.

“The relentless doubling of processors per microprocessor chip will drive the total processor counts of upcoming server generations to peaks well above the levels for which key software have been engineered,” Gartner reported. “Operating systems, middleware, virtualization tools and applications will all be affected, leaving organizations facing difficult decisions, hurried migrations to new versions and performance challenges as a consequence of this evolution.”

Wow. Sounds serious, huh? Maybe I am simplifying things a bit here, but doesn’t it make sense to upgrade to quad-core chips only if you have applications that can benefit from those chips? Otherwise, why spend the money?

I suppose I am being naive. Perhaps CPU cores are like crack, and once you get a taste of the power in a dual core chip, you want four cores, and then six, and will keep adding more and more cores until your systems are balls to the wall and your software implodes. It’s a vicious cycle, man.

In all seriousness though, people should be aware that throwing cores at applications does not automatically equal better performance; it’s been reported time and time again on SearchDataCenter.com since 2007 that not all your apps can use mutilple cores, because they aren’t written for paralellism.

According to Gartner, “the impact [of putting apps that aren't written for parellelism on multi-core chips] is akin to putting a Ferrari engine in a go-cart; the power may be there, but design mismatches severely limit the ability to exploit it.”

In fact, software developers are doing their best to design products that can take advantage of multiple cores, but find it hard to keep up with the tick-tock advancement model of Intel Corp. and AMD.

Many apps are designed to run on just one core, and work just fine in that one core. In this case, the software doesn’t know what to do with more than one core, and will actually run slower on multi-core chips. Of course, the processor makers don’t advertise this point.

“It’s important to understand that if the software developer doesn’t do something, the majority of software applications will run on a single core. The application will not leverage the multiple cores available and, in fact, the application may even get slower,” said Ray DePaul, president and CEO of RapidMind Inc., in Waterloo, Ont. “There is talk about 80-core processors (from Intel) now and this is scary to software developers. They can’t wrap their head around how that is going to work.”

Meanwhile, organizations get double the number of processors in each chip generation, approximately every two years, according to Gartner. Each generation of microprocessor, with its doubling of processor counts through some combination of more cores and more threads per core, turns the same number of sockets into twice as many processors. “In this way a 32-socket, high-end server with eight core chips in the sockets would deliver 256 processors in 2009. In two years, with 16 processors per socket appearing on the market, the machine swells to 512 processors in total. Four years from now, with 32 processors per socket shipping, that machine would host 1,024 processors,” Gartner reported.

There are apps inherently designed to use multiple cores, like heavy workloads used in virtualization, Java, expansive databases and complex enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications. Apps like these use more than one core and perform up to 50% better on multi-core chips, according to analysts.

So, heed Gartner’s warning and don’t go core-crazy; do your research and make sure the apps you run on multi-core chips before you take money from your tight IT budgets to buy them.

.

The C2005 is an updated version of Rackable’s top selling half depth 2U server product, the C2004, which offers density comparable to industry standard 1U servers.

“The C2005 introduces an unparalleled level of flexibility compared to anything we have ever offered,” said Geoff Noer, VP of Product Management.

The new C2005 includes both Intel and AMD quad-core processor options and offers up to five low-profile expansion slots and a sixth slot available in all configurations (often a x16 PCI-E slot), Noer said.

“A lot of new technologies, like virtualization, benefit from having additional expansion slots for connectivity. In a 1 U server you typically only see one or two expansion slots,” Noer said.

The C2005 also includes up to 10 x 2.5” or 5 x 3.5” SAS or SATA II hard drives – or a mix or both. “An emerging challenge is to address the need to support both 3.5 and 2.5 inch, and providing both in a single platform” adds appeal, Noer said.

“Configurations that would have had to been in a 3U server or larger, for the number of expansion slots, can now be done with a 2U half depth. The density level is much higher and suited for technologies like virtualization,” Noer said.

Noer said the C2005 is well suited for scale-out computing across many markets, especially Internet, Enterprise, and HPC customers.

Up to 44 C2005 servers fit into a single rack. The server is also available in AC or DC power, and Noer said both options are in high demand. “The advantage of DC is largely around increased reliability of the solution. We can also supply AC to the cabinet and DC power to all of the servers inside the cabinet,” through Rackable’s AC-to-DC X86 rack-level rectification technology, which the company has offered since 2003.

The server is available for order immediately. Rackable did not give pricing because the systems are built to order, and pricing depends on configurations Noer said.

Customers are already running applications on shared infrastructure within their firewalls using Intel Virtualization Technology (Intel-VT) and Oracle Grid Computing technologies. Some companies are also creating private clouds for their internal applications and to have the ability to extend them to public cloud environments, according to Oracle.

To advance the use of cloud computing, Oracle and Intel plan to cooperate in the following areas:

* Efficiency – Recent collaboration between Oracle and Intel on Oracle VM and the Xen open source hypervisor with Intel VT has yielded a 17 percent performance improvement of Oracle Database running virtualized on Intel Xeon processors. Oracle and Intel will continue their joint software optimization work to achieve performance and power efficiency gains.

* Security – Oracle and Intel will work together to strengthen the security of VMs in a shared cloud environment. Both companies will continue to integrate their data encryption technologies to guarantee data privacy and security in shared public cloud environments.

* Standards – Intel and Oracle will work with other industry leaders to extend standards that enable portability of virtual machine images, such as the Open Virtual Format (OVF), and to create Web services standards for provisioning and management of cloud-based services.

This week, Oracle also announced new licensing and support for a handful of Oracle applications in Amazon EC2 cloud computing environments.