The Virtualization Room

A SearchServerVirtualization.com and SearchVMware.com blog

» VIEW ALL POSTS Oct 15 2009   2:12PM GMT

Blades vs. rack servers: A different perspective



Posted by: Colin Steele
Tags:
Blade servers
Cisco
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Rack servers

Our recent blades vs. rack servers face-off between Chris House and Rick Vanover has spurred some hot debate. Virtualization blogger Aaron Delp, a senior engineer at ePlus Technology, submitted this response on the topic of blades vs. rack servers:

Here is how I see the rack vs. blades debate: No solution is right all the time! There are situations in which racks are better, and there are situations where blades are better.

Before I go into the use cases, let me clarify one or two points for both architectures:

  • Everyone’s prices are different based on a million different factors. No one pays list. Cost comparisons must be made on a customer-by-customer, situation-by-situation basis. That being said, from my experience, blades will be cheaper overall once you meet a break-even point — usually in the five- or six-blade range.
  • Power can be difficult to understand, but the following statement always holds true: The more blades you have in the chassis, the more power-efficient it will be. Blade chassis power supplies are designed to be at least 90% efficient; most rack servers are 75% at best. (See part one and part two of my articles on the calculations involved.)
  • Management of BIOS and firmwares: With the exception of the Cisco UCS platform, both racks and blades are still flashed in pretty much the same way. There isn’t a huge advantage to either platform. Cisco UCS and its stateless model really changes the game and should serve as a model to all other server vendors.

Racks are better under the following conditions:

  • Small number of servers: If you are only buying a small number of servers (three or four, maybe), the savings brought by blades are negligible.
  • Power constraints: Some older data centers and many co-los don’t like or can’t support 208V power.
  • High I/O requirements: I see this going away as 10G and converged fabrics come into play, but sometimes you need so many I/O cards that a blade solution is not appropriate.

Blades are better under the following conditions:

  • Consolidation of the chassis and one-time setup: Install the chassis in the rack, and you have consolidated cable runs for KVM, power, networking and FC.  This reduces the costs of wiring everything up every time a server is added and saves time.
  • I/O Virtualization: All major blade systems (HP, IBM, Cisco) can now virtualize the MAC address and FC WWPNs. This leads to a true “wire-it-once” solution.  There’s no need to involve the SAN and network teams to redo VLANs or LUN masking because of a blade hardware change.
  • Power efficiency: As I covered above, blades will always be more power efficient above a certain number of blades.

 Comment on this Post

 
There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.
Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.
Send me notifications when other members comment.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Forgot Password

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an e-mail containing your password.

Your password has been sent to: