Comments on: Dell FlexMem Bridge Helps Save 50% on Virtualization Licensing

By: Scot

Scot — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:00 +0000

Hi Everyone, with the latest vSphere 5.0 release. Does the new license
model hurt Dell’s FlexMem virtualization licensing costs now that it
charges for increased memory capacity for vms? Does this diminishes the
FlexMem value-add?

By: adult services

adult services — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:11:00 +0000

Information leaked by Dell implies it will release a Windows 8 tablet in Q1 of 2012. Can that timetable be met? James Kendrick has been using mobile devices since they weighed 30 pounds, and has been sharing his insights on mobile technology for almost …

By: Karl Rabe

Karl Rabe — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:25:00 +0000

The Cisco B230 is a better comparison on price and real estate.

By: Dell M910 Blade Server Achieves #1 VMmark Score « BladesMadeSimple.com (MIRROR SITE)

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:16:00 +0000

[...] a diagram on how this works. I wrote a post on this technology a few weeks back, so jump over to this page and take a look (read the comments – good discussions were [...]

By: Blades Made Simple » Blog Archive » Dell M910 Blade Server Achieves #1 VMmark Score

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:02:43 +0000

[...] I wrote a post on this technology a few weeks back, so jump over to this page and take a look (read the comments – good discussions were [...]

By: Kevin Houston

Kevin Houston — Thu, 27 May 2010 18:30:02 +0000

I agree that large amounts of memory are better suited on rack systems like the #ibm x3850 x5 or the #dell R910 server platform if a customer doesn't “need” a blade server. The point of these exercises were to highlight the maximum densities that IBM and Dell would provide in their blade offerings, but I think realistically the chances of a customer filling up racks of blade servers simply for memory density is probably very rare.

By: mike roberts

mike roberts — Thu, 27 May 2010 03:59:08 +0000

i think we are violently agreeing. EP is the right thing for up to 96GB, they are way more cost effective, power efficient, and will perform = or better than EX. the 18 DIMM EP systems fit up to 144GB, you take a performance hit on memory today to get there, but for some applications they work well. EX fits from 96GB and beyond. the HX5 alone has a very narrow window where it fits (best case 96-128GB of memory – i think most in that range would go for the 18 DIMM EP blade, but depends on customer). i dont know how to price out the IBM blades or racks with max5, but i'd bet M910 would do pretty well in price vs. 2 x HX5 + 2 x MAX5 blades up to 512GB.
mike

By: Proteus

Proteus — Wed, 26 May 2010 10:23:10 +0000

I hate to disagree, but the vast, vast majority of Nehalem-EP based blades I see go out the door with 12 DIMMS and 48GB or 96GB max. Due to the 3-channel EP memory architecture, 16 and 18 DIMM blades incur a massive performance penality (dropping from 1333 to 800 FSB, or even 533 as in the case of some vendors). For some workloads on lightly loaded systems, it doesn't matter, but for others, it hurts a lot. I see EX based systems and blades as being the way to go. If you're putting 512GB in a box, you're likely NOT doing it with hideously expensive 16GB dimms on a blade. The best platform for 512GB+ would be the 3950X5, given its support for 64dimms+32 with MAX5. HP is nowhere to be found..the 4-socket Magny-cours based systems won't perform as well with virtualized workloads, and they are late to the party with EX. Dell only has a 32 DIMM solution, which makes 512GB an expensive proposition.

By: mike roberts

mike roberts — Tue, 25 May 2010 05:12:53 +0000

Proteus,
In a 2 socket configuration we use both memory controller on the processors (1 controller is directly connected to memory, 1 goes through FlexMem Bridge), same as IBM.
I absolutely agree that 64-128GB is a sweet spot today for most virtualization enviroments, but that is where EP fits. you are going to take a huge cost and power hit in going with EX for that kind of configuration and the performance of EX is not going to show up. EX is the right product for =>128GB of memory, that is the point where memory cost & power will outstrip the CPU cost/power overhead of EX and also the performance will shine because you are in balance with the high core count and large memory. to me EX is overkill for the <128GB configuration. This is exactly why you see 18 DIMM “virtualization optimized” EP based blades coming to market to address that space. we absolutely see customers looking at 2S blades with 256-512GB as people look to virtualize more intensive applications, that is where M910 shines.
mike

By: mike roberts

mike roberts — Tue, 25 May 2010 05:01:06 +0000

joe,
to the QPI comment, want to make sure you understand fully. processor 1 has 1 memory controller that connects via SMI to 2 buffers and a 2nd memory controller that connects via SMI (through the FlexMem Bridge) to 2 more buffers. so it owns and connects directly to the buffers of memory that would have been connected to processor 3 (if it was there) – not through QPI. so 1/2 of the memory is connected directly to processor 1 and 1/2 of the memory is connected directly to processor 2.
I also think EX is advantaged beyond just the processor capabilities (8 vs. 6 core and the cache); there is also memory scalability advantages (512GB vs. 384GB today, will be 1TB for M910 before too long while cisco will always be at 384GB) as well as significant RAS advantages (that is actually the most significant advantage really) native to the EX architecture that B250 will never have.