Last week, Blade.org invited me to their 3rd Annual Technology Symposium  – an online event with speakers from APC, Blade Network Technologies, Emulex, IBM, NetApp, Qlogic and Virtensys.  Blade.org is a collaborative organization and developer community focused on accelerating the development and adoption of open blade server platforms.   This year’s Symposium focused on ”the dynamic data center of the future”.   While there were many interesting topics (check out the replay here), the one that appealed to me most was “Shared I/O” by Alex Nicolson, VP and CTO of Emulex.  Let me explain why. 

While there are many people who would (and probably will) argue with me, blade servers are NOT for all workloads.  When you take a look at the blade server ecosystem today, the biggest bottleneck you see is the limitation of on board I/O.  Without compromising server slots, the maximum amount of expansion you can achieve on nearly any blade server is 8 I/O ports (6 Ethernet + 2 storage.)  In addition, blade servers are often limited to 2 expansion cards so if a customer has a requirement for “redundant physical adapters” the amount of expansion is reduced even more.    Based on these observations, if you could remove the I/O from the server  the blade server limitations would be eliminated allowing for the adoption of blade servers into more environments.  This could be accomplished with shared I/O.  

When you stop and think about the blade infrastructure design, no matter who the vendor is, it has been the same for the past 9 years.  YES, the vendors have come out with better chassis designs that allow for “high-speed” connectivity, but the overall design is still the same: blade server with CPUs, Memory and I/O cards all on one system board.  It’s time for blade server evolution to a design where I/O is shared.The idea behind Shared I/O is simple: separate the I/O from the server.  Instead of having storage adapters inside a blade server, you would have an I/O Drawer outside containing the blade chassis with the I/O adapters for the blade servers.  No more I/O bottlenecks on your blade servers.  Your I/O potential is (nearly) unlimited!  The advantages to this design include:

• More internal space for blade server design.  If the I/O – including the LAN on Motherboard – was moved off the server, there would be substantial space remaining for more CPUs, more RAM or even more disks.
• Standardized I/O adapters no matter what blade vendor is used.  This is the thought that really excites me.  If you could remove the I/O from the blade server, you would be able to have IBM, Dell, HP and even Cisco in the same rack using the same I/O adapter.  Your investments would be limited to the blade chassis and server.  Not only that, but as blade server architecture changes, you would be able to KEEP the investments you make into your I/O adapters OR on the flip side of that, as I/O adapter speeds increase, you could replace them and keep your servers in place without having to buy new adapters for every server.
• Sharing of I/O adapters means FEWER adapters are needed.  In order for this design to be beneficial, the adapters would need to have the ability to be shared between the servers.  This means that 1 storage HBA may provided resources for 6 servers, but as I/O adapter throughput continues to increase, this may be more of a desire.  Let’s face it – 10Gb is being discussed (and sold) today, but this time next year, 40Gb may be hot and in 3 years, 100Gb may be on the market.  Technology will continue to evolve and if the I/O adapters were separated from the servers, you would have the ability to share the technology across all of your servers.

Now, before you start commenting that this is old news and that companies like Xsiogo have been offering virtual I/O products for a couple of years – hear me out.  The evolution I’m referring to is not a particular vendor providing proprietary options.  I imagine a blade ecosystem across all the vendors that allow for a standardized I/O platform providing guidelines for all blade servers to connect to a shared I/O drawer made by any vendor.  Yes, this may be an unrealistic Nirvana, but look at USB.  All vendors provide them natively out of the chassis without any modifications, so why can’t we get to the same point with a shared I/O connectivity?

So, what do you think.  Am I crazy, or do you think blade server technology will evolve to allow for a separation of I/O.  Share you thoughts in the comments below.

NOTE: IDC revised their report on May 28, 2010.  This post now includes those changes.

IDC reported on May 28, 2010 that worldwide server sales for Q1 2010 factory revenues increased 4.6  4.7% year over year to $10.4 billion in the first quarter of 2010 (1Q10).  They also reported the blade server market accelerated and continued its sharp growth in the quarter with factory revenue increasing 37.1% 37.2% year over year, with shipment growth increasing by 20.8% compared to 1Q09.  According to IDC, nearly 90% of all blade revenue is driven by x86 systems, a segment in which blades now represent 18.8% of all x86 server revenue.

While the press release did not provide details of the market share for all of the top 5 blade vendors, they did provide data for the following: 

#1 market share: HP increased their market share from 52.4% in Q4 2009 to 56.2% in Q1 2010

#2 market share: IBM decreased their market share from 35.1% in Q4 2009 to 23.6% in Q1 2010.

The remaining 20.2% of market share was not mentioned, but I imagine they are split between Dell and Cisco.  In fact, based on the fact that Cisco was not even mentioned in the IDC report, I’m willing to bet a majority of that  I’m working on getting some visibility into clarification on that (if you’re with Dell or Cisco and can help, please shoot me an email.)

According to Jed Scaramella, senior research analyst in IDC’s Datacenter and Enterprise Server group,  ”"In the first quarter of 2009, we observed a lot of business in the mid-market as well as refresh activity of a more transactional nature; these factors have driven x86 rack-based revenue to just below 1Q08 value. Blade servers, which are more strategic in customer deployments, continue to accelerate in annual growth rates. The blade segment fared relatively well during the 2009 downturn and have increased revenue value by 13% from the first quarter of 2008.”

For the full IDC report covering the Q1 2010 Worldwide Server Market, please visit http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22356410

new link: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22360110

Updated 5/24/2010 – I’ve received some comments about expandability and I’ve received a correction about the speed of Dell’s memory, so I’ve updated this post.  You’ll find the corrections / additions below in GREEN.

Since I’ve received a lot of comments from my post on the Dell FlexMem Bridge technology, I thought I would  do an unbiased comparison between Dell’s FlexMem Bridge technology (via the PowerEdge 11G M910 blade server) vs IBM’s MAX5 + HX5 blade server offering.  In summary both offerings provide the Intel Xeon 7500 CPU plus the ability to add “extended memory“ offering value for virtualization, databases and any other workloads that benefit from large amounts of memory.

The Contenders

IBM
IBM’s extended memory solution is a two part solution consisting of the HX5 blade server PLUS the MAX5 memory blade.

• HX5 Blade Server
  I’ve spent considerable time on previous blogs detailing the IBM HX5, so please jump over to those links to dig into the specifics, but at a high level, the HX5 is IBM’s 2 CPU blade server that offers the Intel Xeon 7500 CPU.   The HX5 is a 30mm, ”single wide” blade server therefore you can fit up to 14 in an IBM BladeCenter H blade chassis. 
• MAX5
  The MAX 5 offering from IBM can be thought of as a “memory expansion blade.”  Offering an additional 24 memory DIMM slots, the MAX5 when coupled with the HX5 blade server, provides a total of 40 memory DIMMs.    The MAX5 is a standard “single wide”, 30mm form factor so when used with a single HX5 two IBM BladeCenter H server bays are required in the chassis.

DELL
Dell’s approach to extended memory is a bit different.  Instead of relying on a memory blade, Dell starts with the M910 blade server and allows users to use 2 CPUs plus their FlexMem Bridge to access the memory DIMMs of the 3rd and 4th CPU sockets.  For details on the FlexMem Bridge, check out my previous post.

• PowerEdge 11G M910 Blade Server
  The M910 is a 4 CPU capable blade server with 32 memory DIMMs.  This blade server is a full-height server therefore you can fit 8 servers inside the Dell M1000e blade chassis.

The Face-Off

ROUND 1 – Memory Capacity
When we compare the memory DIMMs available on each, we see that Dell’s offering comes up with 32 DIMMs vs IBM’s 40 DIMMs.  However, IBM’s solution of using the HX5 blade server + the MAX 5 memory expansion has a current maximum memory size is 8Gb whereas Dell offers a max memory size of 16Gb.  While this may change in the future, as of today, Dell has the edge so I have to claim: 

Round 1 Winner:  Dell

ROUND 2 – Memory Performance
As many comments came across on my posting of the Dell FlexMem Bridge technology the other day, several people pointed out that the memory performance is something that needs to be considered when comparing technologies.  Dell’s FlexMem Bridge offering reportedly runs at a maximum memory speed of 833Mhz,  runs at a max of 1066Ghz, but is dependent upon the speed of the processor.  A processor that has a 6.4GT QPI supports memory @ 1066Ghz ; a processor that supports 5.8GT/s QPI supports memory at 978Mhz, and a processor with a QPI speed of 4.8GT runs memory at 800Mhz.  This is a component of Intel’s Xeon 7500 architecture so it should be the same regardless of the server vendor.  Looking at IBM, we see the  HX5 blade server memory runs at a maximum of 978Mhz.    However, when you attach the MAX5 to the HX5 for the additional memory slots, however, the memory runs at speed of 1066Mhz, regardless of the speed of the CPU installed.  While this appears to be black magic, it’s really the results of IBM’s proprietary eXa scaling – something that I’ll cover in detail at a later date.   Although the HX5 blade server memory, when used by itself, does not have the ability to achieve 1066Ghz, this comparison is based on the Dell PowerEdge 11G M910 vs the IBM HX5+MAX5.  With that in mind, the ability to run the expanded memory at 1066Mhz gives IBM the edge in this round.

Round 2 Winner:  IBM

ROUND 3 – Server Density
This one is pretty straight forward.  IBM’s HX5 + MAX5 offering takes up 2 server bays, so in the IBM BladeCenter H, you can only fit 7 systems.  You can only fit 4 BladeCenter H chassis in a 42u rack, therefore you can fit a max of 28  IBM HX5 + MAX5 systems into a rack.

The Dell PowerEdge 11G M910 blade server is a full height server, so you can fit 8 servers into the Dell M1000e chassis.  4 Dell chassis will fit in a 42u rack, so you can get 32 Dell M910′s into a rack.

Round 3 Winner:  Dell

(NEW) ROUND 4 – Expandability
It was mentioned several times in the comments that expandability should have been reviewed as well.  When we look at Dell’s design, we see there two expansion options: run the Dell PowerEdge 11G M910 blade with 2 processors and the FlexMem Bridge, or run them with 4 processors and remove the FlexMem Bridge.

The modular design of the IBM eX5 architecture allows for a user to add memory (MAX5), add processors (2nd HX5) or both (2 x HX5 + 2 x MAX5).  This provide users with a lot of flexibility to choose a design that meets their workload.

Choosing a winner for this round is tough, as there a different ways to look at this:

Maximum CPUs in a server: TIE – both IBM and Dell can scale to 4 CPUs. 
Maximum CPU density in a 42u rack:  Dell wins with 32 x 4 CPU servers vs IBM’s 12.
Maximum Memory in a server: IBM with 640Gb using 2 x HX5 and 2 x MAX5
Max Memory density in a 42u Rack: Dell wins with 16Tb

Round 4 Winner:  TIE
Summary
While the fight was close, with a 2 to 1 win, it is clear the overall winner is Dell.  For this comparison, I tried to keep it focused on the memory aspect of the offerings. 

On a final note, at the time of this writing, the IBM MAX 5 memory expansion has not been released for general availability, while Dell is shipping their M910 blade server. 

There may be other advantages relative to processors that were not considered for this comparison, however I welcome any thoughts or comments you have. 

It’s been a while since I’ve posted what rumours I’m hearing, so I thought I’d dig around and see what I can find out.  NOTE: this is purely speculation, I have no definitive information from any vendor about any of this information so this may be false info.  Read at your own risk.

Rumour #1 – GPU’s on a Blade Server
I’m hearing more and more discussion around “GPU’s” being used on a blade server.  Now, I have to admit, when I hear the term, “GPU“, I’m think of  Graphical Processing Unit – or the type of processor that runs a high-end graphics card.  So, when I hear rumours that there might be blade servers coming out that can handle GPUs, I have to wonder WHY? 

Wikipedia defines a GPU as “A graphics processing unit or GPU (also occasionally called visual processing unit or VPU) is a specialized processor that offloads 3D or 2D graphics rendering from the microprocessor. It is used in embedded systems, mobile phones, personal computers, workstations, and game consoles. Modern GPUs are very efficient at manipulating computer graphics, and their highly parallel structure makes them more effective than general-purpose CPUs for a range of complex algorithms. ” 

NVIDIA, the top maker of GPUs, also points out on their website, “The model for GPU computing is to use a CPU and GPU together in a heterogeneous computing model. The sequential part of the application runs on the CPU and the computationally-intensive part runs on the GPU. From the user’s perspective, the application just runs faster because it is using the high-performance of the GPU to boost performance. “ 

(For a cool Mythbusters video on GPU vs CPU, check out Cliff’s IBM Blog.)

So if a blade vendor decided to put together the ability to run normal AMD or Intel CPUs in tandem with GPU’s from NVIDIA, let’s say by using graphics cards in PCI-x expansion slots, they would have a blade server ideal for running any application that would benefit from high pherformace computing.  This seems do-able today since both HP and IBM offer PCI-x Expansion blades, however the rumour I’m hearing is that there is a blade server coming out that will be specifically designed for running GPUs.  Interesting concept.  I’m anxious to see how it will be received once it’s announced… 

Rumour #2 – Another Blade Server Dedicated for Memory
My second rumour is less exciting than the first – is that yet another blade vendor is about to announce a blade server designed for maximum memory density.  If you’ll recall, IBM has the HS22v blade and HP has the BL490c G6  blade server – both of which are designed for 18 memory DIMMs and internal drives.  So - that leaves either Cisco or Dell to be next on this rumour.  Since Cisco has the B250 blade server that can hold 48 DIMMs, I’m willing to believe they wouldn’t need to invest into designing a half-wide blade that can hold 18 DIMMs, therefore the only remaining option is Dell.  What would Dell gain from introducing a blade server with high memory density?  For one, it would give them an option to compete with IBM and HP in the “2 CPU, 18 Memory DIMM” environment.  Another reason is that it would help expand Dell’s blade portfolio.  If you examine what Dell’s current blade server offerings are today, you see they can’t compete with any requirement for large memory environments without moving to a full-height blade.

That’s all I have.  Let me know if you hear of any other rumours.

Intel officially announced today the Xeon 5600 processor, code named “Westmere.” Cisco, HP and IBM also announced their blade servers that have the new processor. The Intel Xeon 5600 offers:

• 32nm process technology with 50% more threads and cache
• Improved energy efficiency with support for 1.35V low power memory

There will be 4 core and 6 core offerings. This processor also provide the option of HyperThreading, so you could have up to 8 threads and 12 threads per processor, or 16 and 24 in a dual CPU system. This will be a huge advantage to applications that like multiple threads, like virtualization. Here’s a look at what each vendor has come out with:

Cisco
The B200 M2 provides Cisco users with the current Xeon 5600 processors. It looks like Cisco will be offering a choice of the following Xeon 5600 processors: Intel Xeon X5670, X5650, E5640, E5620, L5640, or E5506. Because Cisco’s model is a “built-to-order” design, I can’t really provide any part numbers, but knowing what speeds they have should help.

HP
HP is starting off with the Intel Xeon 5600 by bumping their existing G6 models to include the Xeon 5600 processor. The look, feel, and options of the blade servers will remain the same – the only difference will be the new processor. According to HP, “the HP ProLiant G6 platform, based on Intel Xeon 5600 processors, includes the HP ProLiant BL280c, BL2x220c, BL460c and BL490c server blades and HP ProLiant WS460c G6 workstation blade for organizations requiring high density and performance in a compact form factor. The latest HP ProLiant G6 platforms will be available worldwide on March 29.” It appears that HP’s waiting until March 29 to provide details on their Westmere blade offerings, so don’t go looking for part numbers or pricing on their website.

IBM
IBM is continuing to stay ahead of the game with details about their product offerings. They’ve refreshed their HS22 and HS22v blade servers:

HS22
7870ECU – Express HS22, 2x Xeon 4C X5560 95W 2.80GHz/1333MHz/8MB L2, 4x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS, SR MR10ie

7870G4U – HS22, Xeon 4C E5640 80W 2.66GHz/1066MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS

7870GCU – HS22, Xeon 4C E5640 80W 2.66GHz/1066MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS, Broadcom 10Gb Gen2 2-port

7870H2U -HS22, Xeon 6C X5650 95W 2.66GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS

7870H4U – HS22, Xeon 6C X5670 95W 2.93GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS

7870H5U – HS22, Xeon 4C X5667 95W 3.06GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS

7870HAU – HS22, Xeon 6C X5650 95W 2.66GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS, Emulex Virtual Fabric Adapter

7870N2U – HS22, Xeon 6C L5640 60W 2.26GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS

7870EGU – Express HS22, 2x Xeon 4C E5630 80W 2.53GHz/1066MHz/12MB, 6x2GB, O/Bay 2.5in SAS

HS22V
7871G2U - HS22V, Xeon 4C E5620 80W 2.40GHz/1066MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871G4U - HS22V, Xeon 4C E5640 80W 2.66GHz/1066MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871GDU - HS22V, Xeon 4C E5640 80W 2.66GHz/1066MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871H4U - HS22V, Xeon 6C X5670 95W 2.93GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871H5U - HS22V, Xeon 4C X5667 95W 3.06GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871HAU - HS22V, Xeon 6C X5650 95W 2.66GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871N2U - HS22V, Xeon 6C L5640 60W 2.26GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 3x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871EGU - Express HS22V, 2x Xeon 4C E5640 80W 2.66GHz/1066MHz/12MB, 6x2GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

7871EHU - Express HS22V, 2x Xeon 6C X5660 95W 2.80GHz/1333MHz/12MB, 6x4GB, O/Bay 1.8in SAS

I could not find any information on what Dell will be offering, from a blade server perspective, so if you have information (that is not confidential) feel free send it my way.

IDC reported on February 24, 2010 that blade server sales for Q4 2009 returned to quarterly revenue growth with factory revenues increasing 30.9% in Q4 2009 year over year (vs 1.2% in Q3.)  For the first time in 2009 there was an 8.3% increase in year-over-year shipments in Q4.  Overall blade servers accounted for $1.8 billion in Q4 2009 (up from $1.3 billion in Q3) which represented 13.9% of the overall server revenue.  It was also reported that more than 87% of all blade revenue in Q4 2009 was driven by x86 systems where blades now represent 21.4% of all x86 server revenue.

While the press release did not provide details of the market share for all of the top 5 blade vendors, they did provide data for the following: 

#1 market share: HP with 52.4%

#2 market share: IBM increased their marketshare from Q3 by 5.7% growth to 35.1%

As an important note, according to IDC, IBM significantly outperformed the market with year-over-year revenue growth of 64.1%.  

According to Jed Scaramella, senior research analyst in IDC's Datacenter and Enterprise Server group,  "Blades remained a bright spot in the server vendors’ portfolios.  They were able to grow blade revenue throughout the year while maintaining their average selling prices. Customers recognize the benefits extend beyond consolidation and density, and are leveraging the platform to deliver a dynamic IT environment. Vendors consider blades strategic to their business due to the strong loyalty customers develop for their blade vendor as well as the higher level of pull-through revenue associated with blades."

A few weeks ago, IBM and Emulex announced a new blade server adapter for the IBM BladeCenter and IBM System x line, called the “Emulex Virtual Fabric Adapter for IBM BladeCenter" (IBM part # 49Y4235). Frequent readers may recall that I had a "so what" attitude when I blogged about it in October and that was because, I didn't get it. I didn't get what the big deal was with being able to take a 10Gb pipe and allow you to carve it up into 4 "virtual NICs". HP's been doing this for a long time with their FlexNICs (check out VirtualKennth's blog for a great detail on this technology) so I didn't see the value in what IBM and Emulex was trying to do. But now I understand. Before I get into this, let me remind you of what this adapter is. The Emulex Virtual Fabric Adapter (CFFh) for IBM BladeCenter is a dual-port 10 Gb Ethernet card that supports 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps traffic, or up to eight virtual NIC devices.

This adapter hopes to address three key I/O issues:

1.Need for more than two ports per server, with 6-8 recommended for virtualization
2.Need for more than 1Gb bandwidth, but can't support full 10Gb today
3.Need to prepare for network convergence in the future

"1, 2, 3, 4"
I recently attended an IBM/Emulex partner event and Emulex presented a unique way to understand the value of the Emulex Virtual Fabric Adapter via the term, "1, 2, 3, 4" Let me explain:

"1" – Emulex uses a single chip architecture for these adapters. (As a non-I/O guy, I'm not sure of why this matters – I welcome your comments.)

"2" – Supports two platforms: rack and blade (Easy enough to understand, but this also emphasizes that a majority of the new IBM System x servers announced this week will have the Virtual Fabric Adapter "standard")

"3" – Emulex will have three product models for IBM (one for blade servers, one for the rack servers and one intergrated into the new eX5 servers)

"4" – There are four modes of operation:

• Legacy 1Gb Ethernet
• 10Gb Ethernet
• Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE)…via software entitlement ($$)
• iSCSI Hardware Acceleration…via software entitlement ($$)

This last part is the key to the reason I think this product could be of substantial value. The adapter enables a user to begin with traditional Ethernet, then grow into 10Gb, FCoE or iSCSI without any physical change – all they need to do is buy a license (for the FCoE or iSCSI).

Modes of operation

The expansion card has two modes of operation: standard physical port mode (pNIC) and virtual NIC (vNIC) mode.

In vNIC mode, each physical port appears to the blade server as four virtual NIC with a default bandwidth of 2.5 Gbps per vNIC. Bandwidth for each vNIC can be configured from 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps, up to a maximum of 10 Gb per virtual port.

In pNIC mode, the expansion card can operate as a standard 10 Gbps or 1 Gbps 2-port Ethernet expansion card.

As previously mentioned, a future entitlement purchase will allow for up to two FCoE ports or two iSCSI ports. The FCoE and iSCSI ports can be used in combination with up to six Ethernet ports in vNIC mode, up to a maximum of eight total virtual ports.

Mode IBM Switch Compatibility

vNIC – works with BNT Virtual Fabric Switch
pNIC – works with BNT, IBM Pass-Thru, Cisco Nexus
FCoE- BNT or Cisco Nexus
iSCSI Acceleration – all IBM 10GbE switches

I really think the "one card can do all" concept works really well for the IBM BladeCenter design, and I think we'll start seeing more and more customers move toward this single card concept.

Comparison to HP Flex-10
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a network or storage guy, so I'm not really qualified to compare this offering to HP's Flex-10, however IBM has created a very clever video that does some comparisons. Take a few minutes to watch and let me know your thoughts.

IBM officially announced today a new addition to their blade server line – the HS22v.  Modeled after the HS22 blade server, the HS22v is touted by IBM as a “high density, high performance blade optimized for virtualization.”  So what makes it so great for virtualization?  Let’s take a look.

Memory
One of the big differences between the HS22v and the HS22 is more memory slots.  The HS22v comes with 18 x very low profile (VLP) DDR3 memory DIMMs for a maximum of 144GB RAM.  This is a key attribute for a server running virtualization since everyone knows that VM’s love memory.  It is important to note, though, the memory will only run at 800Mhz when all 18 slots are used.  In comparison, if you only had 6 memory DIMMs installed (3 per processor) then the memory would run at 1333Mhz and 12 DIMMs installed (6 per processor) runs at 1066Mhz.  As a final note on the memory, this server will be able to use both 1.5v and 1.35v memory.  The 1.35v will be newer memory that is introduced as the Intel Westmere EP processor becomes available.  The big deal about this is that lower voltage memory = lower overall power requirements.

Drives
The second big difference is the HS22v does not use hot-swap drives like the HS22 does.  Instead, it uses a 2 x solid state drives (SSD) for local storage. These drives have  hardware RAID 0/1 capabilities standard.  Although the picture to the right shows a 64GB SSD drive, my understanding is that only 50GB drives will be available as they start to become readlily available on March 19, with larger sizes (64GB and 128GB) becoming available in the near future.  Another thing to note is that the image shows a single SSD drive, however the 2nd drive is located directly beneath.  As mentioned above, these drives do have the ability to be set up in a RAID 0 or 1 as needed.

So – why did IBM go back to using internal drives?  For a few reasons:

Reason #1 : in order to get the space to add the extra memory slots, a change had to be made in the design.  IBM decided that solid state drives were the best fit.

Reason #2: the SSD design allows the server to run with lower power.  It’s well known that SSD drives run at a much lower power draw than physical spinning disks, so using SSD’s will help the HS22v be a more power efficient blade server than the HS22.

Reason #3: a common trend of virtualization hosts, especially VMware ESXi, is to run on integrated USB devices.  By using an integrated USB key for your virtualization software, you can eliminate the need for spinning disks, or even SSD’s therefore reducing your overall cost of the server.

Processors
So here’s the sticky area.  IBM will be releasing the HS22v with the Intel Xeon 5500 processor first.  Later in March, as the Intel Westmere EP (Intel Xeon 5600) is announced, IBM will have models that come with it.  IBM will have both Xeon 5500 and Xeon 5600 processor offerings.  Why is this?  I think for a couple of reasons:

a) the Xeon 5500 and the Xeon 5600 will use the same chipset (motherboard) so it will be easy for IBM to make one server board, and plop in either the Nehalem EP or the Westmere EP

b) simple – IBM wants to get this product into the marketplace sooner than later.

Questions

1) Will it fit into the BladeCenter E? 
YES – however there may be certain limitations, so I’d recommend you reference the IBM BladeCenter Interoperability Guide for details.

2) Is it certified to run VMware ESX 4?
YES

3) Why didn’t IBM call it HS22XM?
According to IBM, the “XM” name is feature focused while “V” is workload focused - a marketing strategy we’ll probably see more of from IBM in the future.

That’s it for now.  If there are any questions you have about the HS22v, let me know in the comments and I’ll try to get some answers.

For more on the IBM HS22v, check out IBM’s web site here.

Check back with me in a few weeks when I’m able to give some more info on what’s coming from IBM!

As I mentioned previously, the next few weeks are going to be filled with new product / technology annoucements.  Here’s a list of some dates that you may want to mark on your calendar (and make sure to come back here for details:)

Feb 9 - Big Blue new product announcement (hint: in the BladeCenter family)

Mar 2 – Big Blue non-product annoucement (hint: it’s not the eX4 family)

Mar 16  – Intel Westmere (Intel Xeon 5600) Processor Announcement (expect HP and IBM to announce their Xeon 5600 offerings)

Mar 30 - Intel Nehalem EX (Xeon 7600) Processor Annoucement (expect HP and IBM to announce their Intel Xeon 7600 offerings)

As always, you can expect for me to give you coverage on the new blade server technology as it gets announced!