Blizzard Entertainment recently announced they are auctioning off some older HP blade servers that previously hosted the popular World of Warcraft (WoW) game with 100% of the proceeds going to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital®.  While it is great to own a piece of WoW history, keep in mind, these servers won’t do you any good for use without a minimum of a HP BladeSystem chassis, power supplies and ethernet modules.  Here are the details of the auctions found at http://stores.ebay.com/Blizzard-Blade-Servers:

• Display is approximately 28” x 10.3” x 1.7” and weighs 18lbs.
• Each case is exactly the same for all blade servers being auctioned.
• Plaques will show the Realm Name and Mo/Yr of start and end date.
• The copy on the plaque varies.  An example of one reads: Blizzard Entertainment has carefully preserved and archived our retired server blades, releasing only a limited number for a noble cause. To us, this server blade is more than just hardware: within the circuits and hard drive, a world of magic, adventure, and friendship thrived. From fishing in quiet lakes to defeating Arthas in Icecrown Citadel, this blade was home to thousands of immersive experiences across the world of Azeroth and beyond. We thank you for the safekeeping of this important part of history.
• The signatures are printed on the plaque are not original and include the World of Warcraft team.

Current bids range from $107 to $225.  Details of the blade server configuration is not provided, however I would speculate, 2 x Intel 5400 CPUs with 64GB of RAM and 6 Network Interface Cards (NICs.)

The auction runs through January 30, so go to http://stores.ebay.com/Blizzard-Blade-Servers and place your bids while you can!

With vSphere 5.0, VMware improved on its VMware’s Virtual Distributed Switch (VDS) functionality and overall networking ability, so now it’s time to recoup some of that money on the hardware side. The way I see is most people with a chassis full of blade servers probably already have VMware Enterprise Plus licenses, so they are already entitled to VDS, however what you may not have known is that customers with VMware View Premier licenses are also entitled to use VDS. Some of the newest features found in VMware VDS 5 are:

The last feature is the one that makes me think I don’t need to use HP’s Flex-10 anymore. Network I/O control (NIOC) allows you to assign shares to your network interfaces set priority, limits control congestions all in a dynamic fashion. What I particularly like about NIOC as compared to Flex-10 is the wasted bandwidth with hard limits. In the VDI world, the workload becomes very bursty. One example can be seen when using vMotion. When I’m performing maintenance work in a virtual environment I think it sure would be nice to have more than 2 GB/s a link to move the desktops off – however when you have to move 50+ desktops per blade you have to sit there and wait awhile. Of course, when this is your design, you wait because you wouldn’t want to suffer performance problems during the day by lack of bandwidth on services.

A typical Flex-10 configuration may break down the on board nic (LOM) something like this

To get a similar setup with NIOC it may look something like this.

Total shares from above would be: 5 + 50 + 40 + 20 = 115

In this example FT, iSCSI and Replication don’t have to be counted as they will not be used. The shares only kick if there is contention. The shares are also only applied if the traffic type exists on the link. I think it would best practice to limit vMotion traffic as multiple vMotions kicking off could easily exceed the bandwidth. I think 8000 Mbps would be reasonable limit with this sort of setup.

Management: 5 shares; (5/115) X 10 Gb = 434.78 Mbps

NFS: 50 shares; (50/115) X 10 Gb = 4347.83Mbps

Virtual Machine: 40 shares; (40/115) * 10 Gb = 3478.26Mbps

vMotion: 20 shares; (20/115) X 10 Gb = 1739.13Mbps

I think the benefits plus the cost saving is worth moving ahead with a 10GB design with NIOC. Below are some list prices taken on November 28, 2011. Which one are you going to choose?

Flex-10

HP_6120G-XG

Dwayne is the newest Contributor to BladesMadeSimple.com and is the author of IT Blood Pressure (http://itbloodpressure.com/) where he provides tips on Virtual Desktops and gives advice on best practices in the IT industry with a particular focus in Healthcare.  In his day job, Dwayne is an Infrastructure Specialist in the Healthcare and Energy Sector in Western Canada.

Revenue growth for the entire server market (all servers, not just blade servers) slowed considerably showing only 4.2% year over year growth bringing in $12.7 billion. Growth in the world of servers continues but this marks the slowest growth rate for any quarter since Q1 2010. IDC believes that overall server sales will continue to decelerate due to weakening economic conditions around the globe. “After nearly two years of steady revenue growth, the server market began to decelerate in Q3 2011 as demand stabilized for many system categories,” said Matt Eastwood, group VP and general manager. Incidentally, IBM and HP are both holding steady, tied for the #1 spot in revenue share, at 29.8%.

When looking at the blade server market specifically, growth was steady for Q3 2011 but not as explosive as Q2 2011. IDC reports “solid growth” in the quarter with a revenue increase of 16.4% year over year (vs 26.9% growth in 2Q11). Shipments increased 2.4% (vs 6.2% reported growth for 2Q11). One thing that hasn’t changed since last quarter is that 89% of all blade revenue is driven by x86 systems. Also, blade server sales representing  20.8% of all x86 server revenue. This shows continued steady growth for the blade server segment but that the pace may be slowing slightly.

#1 market share: HP managed to hold the majority margin moving to 51.0% in Q3 2011 from 51.9% in Q2 2011.

#2 market share: IBM continues to see its margin chipped away slightly down to 18.5% in Q3 2011 from 19.1% in Q2 2011.

#3 market share: Cisco’s disruptive market penetration seems to have slowed at 10.7% overall compared to a solid 10% in Q2 2011.

#4 market share: Even Dell dropped slightly to 7.2% revenue share from 8.2% last quarter.

In looking at the totals, the top four vendors represented 87.4% of the revenue share in the blade servers market which is actually down 2% from last quarter. Cisco grew revenue share by less than 1% which means that some of the displacement of the remaining top vendors is not accounted for. Does this mean there may be some new players in the “others” category that we should be watching? Without a detailed breakdown it’s hard to tell but I’ll definitely be looking forward to comparing the numbers next quarter to see if the trend continues. It could, after all, just be a factor of the margin of error in the statistics.

According to Jed Scaramella, research manager, Enterprise Servers at IDC, “Blade systems represented the fastest growing segment in the server industry and now account for 16.0% of total server revenue – a historic high.”

Probably the most interesting aspect of the report is the introduction of hyper-scale servers. “Hyper-scale servers are designed for large scale datacenters with streamlined system designs that focus on performance, energy efficiency, and density.” This sounds like the mantra for blade servers with the main difference being the lack of management and high availability capabilities at the hardware level. Basically these represent the miles of simple, rack mount commodity servers used by the likes of Google and Facebook. This is a $428 million dollar server segment and growing.

For the full IDC report covering the Q2 2011 Worldwide Server Market, please visit IDC’s website at http://www.idc.com.

Before I begin, I want to emphasize that although I work for Dell, these ideas that I’ve come up with through my experience in the blade server market and from discussions with industry peers.  They are my personal visions and do not reflect those of Dell nor are the ideas mentioned below limited to Dell products and technology. 

The First Evolution of the Blade Server – Less I/O Expansion
Last November I wrote an article of my first vision of “The Blade Server of the Future” on CRN.com.  In the article, I described two future evolutions of the blade server.  The first was the integration of a shared storage environment (below).  While the image depicts the HP BladeSystem C7000 modified with storage, my idea stems from the increase of onboard NICs driving a lot of the individual blade traffic.  With 10Gb / CNA technologies being introduced as a standard offering, and with 40Gb Ethernet around the corner, the additional mezzanine cards and I/O expansion found on today’s blade server technology may not be required in the near future.  The space freed up from the removal of the un-needed I/O bays could be used for something like an integrated storage area network, or perhaps for PCI expansion.

The Next Evolution of the Blade Server – External I/O Expansion
PCI expansion is another possible evolution within the blade server market.  As CPUs continue to shrink, the internal real estate of blade servers increase, allowing for more memory expansion.  However, as more memory is added, less room for I/O cards is available.  While I mention that additional I/O may not be needed on blade servers with the standardization of large onboard Ethernet NICs, the reality is that as you cram more into a blade server, the more I/O will be required.  I believe we’ll see external I/O expansion become standard in future evolutions of blade servers.  Users of RISC technologies will be quick to identify that external I/O is nothing new and in fact, even in the x86 space has been an option through Xsigo.com however my vision is that the external capability would be an industry standard like USB or HDMI.  While the idea of a standardized external I/O capability like shown in the image below is probably more of a dream than a reality, it leads to my long term vision of where blade servers will eventually evolve to.

The Future of the Blade Server – Modular Everything
Blade servers rely on connectivity to the outside world through a mid-plane and I/O modules.  They are containerized within the chassis that houses them allowing them to be an ecosystem for compute resources.  What if we took the idea of how the blades connect to the blade chassis and extended it to an entire rack?  Imagine having a shelf of blade servers that docked directly to a rack midplane (aka a “rackplane”).  In fact, anything could be designed with this connectivity: storage trays, PCIe trays, power trays.  What ever technology you need, be it compute power, storage or I/O could be added as needed.   The beauty of this design is that the compute nodes could communicate with the storage nodes at “line speed” without the need for point-to-point cabling because they are all tied into the “rackplane”.  Here’s what I think it would look like:

On the front side of the modular rack, a user would have the option to plug in whatever is needed.  For servers, I envision half-size blade servers housed in a 1 or 2U shelf.  The shelf could hold any number of servers, but I would expect that a shelf of 8 – 12 servers would be ideal.  Keep in mind, in this vision, all we need are CPUs and memory inside of a “blade server” so the physical footprint of the future blade server could be the size of today’s full-length PCIe card.  Each of the shelves, whether they are servers, storage or compute, would have docking connectors similar to what we see on today’s blade servers but on a much larger scale.  On the back side of the modular rack, you would have the option to add in battery protection (UPS), cooling and of course, I/O connectivity to your data center core fabrics. 

One of the most obvious disadvantages of this design is that if you had a problem with your “RackPlane”, it would take a lot of resources off line.  While that would be the case, I would expect that the design would have multiple rackplanes in place that would be serviceable.  Of course, if the racks were stacked side-by-side with other racks, that could pose a problem – but hey, I’m just envisioning the future, I’m not designing it…

What are your thoughts on this?  Am I totally crazy, or do you think we could see this in the next 10 years?  I’d love your thoughts, comments or arguments.   Thanks for reading.

Kevin Houston is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of BladesMadeSimple.com.  He has over 14 plus years of experience in the x86 server marketplace.  Since 1997 Kevin has worked at several resellers in the Atlanta area, and has a vast array of competitive x86 server knowledge and certifications as well as an in-depth understanding of VMware and Citrix virtualization.    Kevin works for Dell as a Server Sales Engineer covering the Global 500 market.

With all that is made of the competition between blade server manufacturers and the growth of the blade server market in general, is there room for another type of condensed computing in the data center? Have we been going about things all wrong with regard to architecture design?

Nutanix thinks so.

Nutanix is a start-up company geared towards delivering a simplified virtualization infrastructure with a strong focus towards eliminating the need for a SAN. Their clustered solution brings storage and compute together which theoretically reduces expense, reduces complexity, and improves performance. On its own it doesn’t really seem that innovative but the secret sauce is how they make the cluster scale and tier/span data across all nodes without sacrificing performance. Each node has the usual compute resources plus a mix of local SSD and SATA hard disks. There are 4 nodes per 2u enclosure called a “block”. Add more blocks and you have a Nutanix cluster. The software stack scales and balances everything between the nodes and blocks. The technology originated from the architecture that companies like Google and Facebook employ in their data centers. Assuming that can be taken at face value, the scalability potential is phenomenal.

So what’s the big deal?

Well my thinking is that if you can eliminate the need for a SAN (for virtualization) then you can definitely eliminate the need for an enclosure of blade servers. No interconnects. No Enclosure. Simplified network architecture. No SAN. What’s not to love?

Eliminate the SAN. Really?

The 37 million dollar question that comes to mind is: Can I really eliminate my SAN? For me the answer is a quick and resounding, “No I cannot!” My SAN does a heck of lot more than deliver servers through a hypervisor. There are still application, database and file servers depending on a direct connection to that centralized beast of disk technology. Many of those servers may be virtualized but some of their data volumes are simply best served as LUNS and not ridiculously large VMDK files. Granted, the topic of VM data placement is debatable but it becomes moot if I have any physical servers around needing centralized storage. In my environment, and I feel confident I’m not alone in this, the SAN can’t really go away.

Specific to virtualized workloads, Nutanix claims that there is plenty of capacity for just about any scenario. Personally, I still doubt the clustered Nutanix nodes have the local capacity to absorb both the VMs and their data with redundancy. A single block (made up of 4 nodes) has some solid state goodness and 20TB worth of storage (5TB per node). As the cluster scales by adding blocks of nodes the increased pool of storage is available to all VMs. For some environments that may be more than enough capacity to contain everything related every virtual server. For other environments this may not even be close to the needed capacity. I also wonder what happens when I drink the Nutanix kool-aid and then later hit the capacity wall? I’d feel pretty silly running out of space and having to buy a full compute block just to increase storage capacity.

Regardless, it does seem possible that Nutanix could displace the SAN completely if your environment is 100% virtualized and capacity requirements aren’t too drastic. Realistically though, since most businesses are not 100% virtualized, this technology simply reduces the need for capacity expansion and the worry of performance tuning the SAN for VM workloads. That definitely has some value but how much depends on how virtualized you are and how much data your VMs are connected to (among other things).

Ok. So how about compute?

Today we have stacks of blade enclosures full of ESX hosts driving maximum efficiency of network and power. Or are they? Let’s say you have a HP c7000 full of half height BL460 servers. For every 10u of rack space you get 16 dual socket ESX hosts. With the Nutanix solution there are 4 hosts per every 2u block so that same 10u can hold 20 similarly configured physical hosts. Within that same 10u there is also a collective 6TB of Fusion IO, 6TB of SATA SSD, and 100TB of SATA disk. The density win clearly goes to the Nutanix solution.

From a networking perspective things are a bit less clear. Within the HP enclosure, using Flex-10 virtual connect, there would be two or more 10Gb uplinks per enclosure (16 physical hosts). For each pair of uplinks one would be active with the other ready for fail-over. You could get away with a single pair of 10Gb uplinks but that would be silly for a full enclosure of hosts. I’d argue that more than four uplinks would likely be needed but that’s a different conversation. The main point is that there is some flexibility and design decisions as to how the network is configured.

By contrast the Nutanix has four 10GB uplinks per 2u block (one for each node within the block). Comparing the same 10u rack space you end up with 20 10Gb uplinks. Nearest as I can tell there is no aggregation of the 10Gb interfaces. From a pure performance perspective you can’t argue with the simplicity and potential of a dedicated 10Gb connection per host. On the other hand that is a huge number of 10Gb ports and certainly increases the cost of the networking infrastructure. The single interface per node also doesn’t give any option for fail-over. At this point I’m not entirely clear on what all of the networking capabilities are because Nutanix literature focuses purely on all of the SAN oriented benefits and I haven’t yet connected with them to follow up. I’d like to learn a bit more about their networking architecture before I declare an advantage to one or the other. I’ll report back what I find out.

Bottom Line

Nutanix has a pretty good start on a new way of delivering virtualization. The idea of consolidating compute and storage isn’t entirely new (Pivot3, for example, has had VMs running on their storage arrays for a couple of years now) but Nutanix has absolutely evolved the concept. If they can deliver on all of their promises for less money than “the big guys” they stand a reasonable chance at being disruptive to both storage and blade center markets in the niche of virtualization.

One area where I can see this strategy really taking off is with VDI deployments. Who wouldn’t want a dedicated stack of gear running at high performance with plenty of capacity to spare? The total value of this technology,however, depends on a number of unanswered questions both technical and financial. Assuming it is as cost competitive as it is claimed to be, certainly green field environments should take a serious look and determine if a dedicated purpose built virtualization cluster has more value than a more complex but more versatile traditional storage and compute approach. Those that have existing storage and compute stacks will need to do a much more comprehensive evaluation because there’s a lot more to the value of “traditional” data center technology than consolidated server workloads.

Nutanix is cool, but I’m not replacing all of my blade servers just yet.

To find out more information about Nutanix click here.

To find out more about HP blade servers click here.

Chris is a contributor and author for BladesMadeSimple.com and in his day job is a Systems Architect for Clackamas County in Oregon and an HP customer.  The opinions expressed in his writings do not necessarily reflect those of BladesMadeSimple or Chris’ employer.  Follow Chris on Twitter @sysgeekguy.

 Dell has broken the long-standing design concept of embedding the LAN onto the motherboard (aka LOM) and replaced it with a small, removable mezzanine card called a Network Daughter Card, or NDC.  The NDC provides the buyer with a flexibility of choosing what they want ( 4 x 1GbE, 2 x 10GbE or 2 x Converged Network Adapter.)  This innovation is exciting to me, as it not only provides a possible upgrade path to future technologies, but it also changes the way we look at server technology.  No longer does the on-board NIC have to be integrated onto the motherboard, but it can be a removable card that can be easily replaced or upgraded.  In a few years when this is standard architecture on every x86 server, remember where you saw it first.

But wait – there’s more.  In addition the NDC is the first adapter to offer the industry’s first network partitioning, or “NPAR” scheme that makes it possible to split the 10GbE pipe while working with any of the Dell PowerEdge M1000e 10GbE Ethernet Switch Modules.  So, what’s the big deal about NPAR?  Let me explain.

With the increased amount of virtualization in the data center, combined with an increase in data and cloud computing, the network’s efficiency is becoming compromised driving many organizations to embrace a 10GbE network.  While moving to a more robust 10GbE environment may be ideal for an organization, it also brings challenges like ensuring that the appropriate bandwidth for all resources is available in both the physical and virtual environments.  This is where NPAR comes in.  Network Partitioning allows for administrators to split up  the 10GbE pipes on the NDC into 4 separate partitions or physical functions and allocate bandwidth and resources as needed.  Each of the four partitions is an actual PCI Express function that appears in the blade server’s system ROM, O/S or virtual O/S as a separate physical NIC. 

Each partition can support networking features such as:

• TCP checksum offload
• Large send offload
• Transparent Packet Aggregation (TPA)
• Multiqueue receive-side scaling
• VM queue (VMQ) feature of the Microsoft® Hyper-V™ hypervisor
• Internet SCSI (iSCSI) HBA
• Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) HBA.

Administrators can enable/disable any of the features per partition and they configure a partition to run iSCSI, FCoE, and TCP/ IP Offload Engine (TOE) simultaneously.

Each of the four partitions per port (8 per NDC) can be set up with a specific size and a specific weight.  In the example shown on the above, you see that Physical Port 1 has 4 partitions:

• Partition 1 (red) = 2Gbps, running as an iSCSI HBA on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2
• Partition 2 (orange) = 2Gbps, running as an FCoE HBA on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2
• Partition 3 (green) = 1Gbps, running TOE on on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2
• Partition 4 (blue) = 5Gbps, running as a Layer 2 NIC on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2

Each partition’s “Maximum Bandwidth” can be set to any increment of 100Mbps (or .1Gbps) up to 10000 Mbps or 10 Gbps.  Also, note, this is for send/transmit only.  The receive direction bandwidth is always 10 Gbps.

Furthermore, admins can configure the weighting of each partition to provide increased bandwidth presence when an application requires it.  In the example above, Physical Port 2 has the “Relative Bandwidth Weight” on all 4 partitions set for an equal weight at 25% – giving each port equal weight.  If, however VMkernel NIC 1 (red) needed to have more weight, or priority, over the other NICs, we could set the weight to 100% giving that port top priority.

If you are feeling really adventurous, you can oversubscribe a port.  This is accomplished by setting the 4 partitions of that single port to having a Maximum Bandwidth setting of more than 100%.  This allows each of the partitions to take as much bandwidth as allowed as their individual traffic flow needs change – based on the Relative Bandwidth Weight assigned.  Take a look at the following:

The example above shows each of the four partitions’ Maximum Bandwidth (shown in .1 increments so 10 = 1 Gbps)

• Partition 1 = 1 Gbps
• Partition 2 = 1 Gbps
• Partition 3 = 8 Gbps
• Partition 4 = 8 Gpbs

Total for all 4 partitions = 18 Gbps, which means the port is 80% (8 Gbps) oversubscribed.

Some additional rules to note from the NPAR User’s Manual:

• For Microsoft Windows Server, you can have the Ethernet Protocol enabled on all, some, or none of the four partitions on an individual port.
• For Linux OSs, the Ethernet protocol will always be enabled (even if disabled in Dell Unified Server Configuration screen).
• A maximum of two iSCSI Offload Protocols (HBA) can be enabled over any of the four available partitions of a single port. For simplicity, it is recommended to always using the first two partitions of a port for any offload protocols.
• For Microsoft Windows Server , the Ethernet protocol does not have to be enabled for the iSCSI offload protocol to be enabled and used on a specific partition.

For more information on the Network Partitioning capabilities of the Dell Network Daughter Card, check out the white paper at: Dell Broadcom NPAR White Paper

Kevin Houston is the founder of BladesMadeSimple.com.  He has over 14 plus years of experience in the x86 server marketplace.  Since 1997 Kevin has worked at several resellers in the Atlanta area, and has a vast array of competitive x86 server knowledge and certifications as well as an in-depth understanding of VMware and Citrix virtualization.    Kevin works for Dell as a Server Sales Engineer covering the Global 500 market.

I also want to highlight some other innovations that Dell is offering on certain blade servers:

Network Daughter Card (NDC) – unlike the network interface cards built into the blade server motherboard, the NDC is a daughter card that offers choices of 4 x 1Gb NICs, 10Gb NICs or CNA.  The NDC is a new feature and not offered on every blade server, but for more info, check out this earlier blog post I wrote: http://bladesmadesimple.com/2011/05/a-review-of-the-dell-poweredge-m710-hd-blade-server/

Network Interface Card Partitioning  (NPAR) – this is a feature found on certain blade server models that allows you to divide up the onboard 10Gb NICs into “virtual NICs”.  The cool thing is this can be performed without a specific network I/O module so you don’t have to worry about being locked into any specific I/O module and without the use of any CPU overhead or specialized software.   Read more about this at http://bladesmadesimple.com/2011/04/dellapril5announcements/.

Let me put these innovative features into a real life scenario (note – this is simply an example and doesn’t confirm or deny any future product release from Dell.)  Imagine today you invest into a blade server with a 10Gb NDC using NPAR to split up the 10Gb pipe into smaller 1Gb virtual NICs. and 10Gb capable Ethernet I/O Module and in 18 months, a 40Gb Ethernet Switch module comes out.  You could theoretically replace the NDC and the Ethernet module with the 40Gb flavor (if/when it ever is available)

The next time you choose a server, look beyond the speeds and feeds and look at the innovation, the reliability and the value the server can offer.

Kevin Houston is the founder of BladesMadeSimple.com.  He has over 14 plus years of experience in the x86 server marketplace.  Since 1997 Kevin has worked at several resellers in the Atlanta area, and has a vast array of competitive x86 server knowledge and certifications as well as an in-depth understanding of VMware and Citrix virtualization.    Kevin works for Dell as a Server Sales Engineer covering the Global 500 market.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/brickworks-builds-solid-system-using-citrix/story-e6frgakx-1226129943367

Kevin Houston is the founder of BladesMadeSimple.com.  He has over 14 plus years of experience in the x86 server marketplace.  Since 1997 Kevin has worked at several resellers in the Atlanta area, and has a vast array of competitive x86 server knowledge and certifications as well as an in-depth understanding of VMware and Citrix virtualization.    Kevin works for Dell as a Server Sales Engineer covering the Global 500 market. 

#IWorkForDell

First of all, you have to buy* a chassis and since Blade servers are cheaper than rack servers (considering the same configuration), you can save on TAC (total acquisition cost) depending on how many blades you put into each chassis.

Also, even if the customer wants just a couple blades, depending on how many I/O modules you will put into a chassis, it could be cheaper than a complex solution involving two or three vendors and less discount.

This comparison is just about TAC, I will not get into all the benefits of a Blade environment.

Rack servers will have advantage for a customer that has the I/O  infrastructure and wants to buy just a few servers and not be tied to a vendor specific technology.

*Both HP (post here) and IBM (post here) have promotions that give free Enclosures/Chassis on your first buy.

My experience says that is better if a customer buy only the minimum necessary to apply for the promotion and request a discount on the rest of the configuration.

About the Author
Thales Osterne is a contributor and author for BladesMadeSimple.com.  He has over six years in the IT field with four years of experience in IBM BladeCenter and System X.  When he is not blogging, Thales works as a product manager for IBM System X & Bladecenter at Lanlink Informatica, a major business partner in Brazil.  He is fluent in Portuguese and English.

According to IDC, worldwide server sales (all servers, not just blade servers) for Q2 2011 factory revenues increased 17.9 % year over year to $13.2 billion in the 2nd quarter of 2011 (2Q11). Interestingly, this marks a 2.7% greater percentage of sales but $2 billion less revenue than the last time we reported IDC numbers for Q4 2010. They also reported the blade server market continued to accelerate with growth exploding in the quarter to a revenue increase of 26.9% year over year (vs 12.6% growth in 4Q10). Shipments increased 6.2% (vs .4% reported growth for 4Q10). According to IDC, nearly 89% of all blade revenue is driven by x86 systems which is an increase of 5% since 4Q10. Blades now represent 21.2% of all x86 server revenue. This shows continued steady growth for the blade server segment and a strong future for x86 systems.

Probably the most interesting aspect of the report is that HP and IBM now share the #1 spot in the overall server market. IBM earned 30.5% of revenue share while HP drew in 29.8%. With regard to the blades market specifically it is a completely different story:

#1 market share: HP continued to lose their dominance dropping from 53.4% in Q4 2010 to 51.9% in Q2 2011.

#2 market share: IBM total revenue share dropped drastically from 28.1% in Q4 2010 to 19.1% in Q2 2011.

#3 market share: Cisco continues the long climb reaching 10% revenue share surpassing Dell’s 8.2%.

According to Jed Scaramella, research manager, Enterprise Servers at IDC, “Blade revenue growth accelerated in the second quarter and remained the fastest growing form factor. All major vendors experienced double-digit growth in their blade business.”

The trend is pretty clear in showing that while the percentages for the top spots continue to shift, the market is still growing strongly and there seems to be plenty of room for all the top players.

For the full IDC report covering the Q2 2011 Worldwide Server Market, please visit IDC’s website at http://www.idc.com.