Intel estimates1 that one-third of the servers in production are more than four years old. At first, one might think that it is great to get this much service out of a capital investment, but the operational costs to run these outdated servers would pay for a complete technology refresh increasing performance and reliability while reducing total costs. How is this possible? With the Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-2600 v2 product family and Cisco’s Unified Computing System. Read More »
Tags: B200 M3, BL460c, blade server, Cisco, Cisco UCS, data center, datacenter, Hewlett Packard, HP, HP BL460c Gen8, Intel E5-2600, Intel Xeon, Intel Xeon E5, Ivy Bridge v2, rack server, refresh, ROI, savings, sever, tco, UCS, x86
Given the diversity of the attendees, I wasn’t sure what to expect at Intel® Developer Forum (IDF) having never been to one before.
Now I’m very glad to have the opportunity to discuss our updated blade and rack servers with Intel’s Xeon® E5-2600 v2 series of processors (aka Ivy Bridge v2) with potential customers, analysts, and even competitors. It was a very good experience and I hope to participate again.
I won’t reiterate the information we blogged about this week, but if you missed these IVB v2 blog posts, take a moment and catch up: Tick Tock Goes the Server Clock & New Intel Processors – Six New Cisco UCS Performance Records.
Next up on the trade-show circuit for me is Oracle OpenWorld where I will be giving a theater presentation on Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS): Changing the Economics of the Datacenter. I hope to see you there!
Tags: B200 M3, blade server, C220 M3, C240 M3, IDF, Intel, rack server, UCS, Xeon
Complexity and Cost Comparison: Cisco UCS vs. IBM Flex System is report recently published by Principled Technologies.
They evaluated both the technologies and costs of each solution and found a UCS solution is both less expensive to deploy and less complex to manage than an IBM Flex System.
Off all the ways Principled Technologies shows how UCS is a superior solution, I wanted to touch on just one: highly available and scalable management. A UCS management domain consists of a pair of Fabric Interconnects and supports up to 160 blade and/or rack servers. In contrast, IBM is limited to 54 blade servers plus a non-redundant Flex System Manager node. Quoting from the paper:
Because IBM Flex System Manager nodes do not failover automatically like the Cisco UCS solution, administrators must manually connect to a backup node and bring it online. Each target system has an OS agent that remains registered to the original FSM node and does not recognize the new FSM. Admins must manually unregister each of these agents from the failed node and then register the new FSM node. [page 7]
Read the full report to learn the many additional ways which UCS is shown to be superior solution and why Cisco has leapt ahead of IBM and is now the #2 blade server vendor worldwide1
Would like to learn more about how Cisco is changing the economics of the datacenter, I would encourage you to review this presentation on SlideShare or my previous series of blog posts, Yes, Cisco UCS servers are that good.
- Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker, Q1 2013 Revenue Share, May 2013
Tags: 2208XP, 6248UP, 6296UP, B200 M3, blade server, capex, Cisco, CMM, CN4093, Fabric Interconnect, fex, Flex System, FSM, G8264R, IBM, patterns, Principled Technologies, rack server, ROI, service profile, tco, UCS, UCS Manager, x240