So you think VirtualConnect simplifies IT?

There’s some interesting information floating around about HP’s Virtual Connect.  They say that it simplifies server management and eliminates barriers to change.   Wow, that’s a stretch! The Virtual Connect switches still need provisioned uplinks. Perhaps a better idea is Dell’s FlexIO (with FlexAddress), which enables automated deployment configuration in advance, network stacking (making a number of switches appear as a single virtual switch), supports industry leading Cisco switches that can be managed using existing Cisco network management frameworks and tools, and of course it all comes from Dell as a single integrated solution.

Also remember that although HP tries to position VirtualConnect Ethernet products as not being an Ethernet switch, they truly are. In fact, the heart of the HP VirtualConnect Ethernet switch is the same family of Broadcom switch ASIC used in the Dell PowerConnect M6220 (actually HP uses a lower end version with fewer 10GbE ports). They put some software on top to hide that, but at the core it’s a commodity switch. So they can’t be managed by network tools in a Cisco network infrastructure: they must be managed separately using HP’s proprietary management interface. In fact, to manage more than one chassis of VirtualConnect switches, HP requires you to buy VirtualConnect Enterprise Manager at $9,000 per chassis!   Dell Cisco blade switches are managed like any other Cisco switch in a network infrastructure, which we think is easier.

HP promotes persistent WWN/MAC with VirtualConnect, but Dell’s implementation (FlexAddress) doesn’t require costly proprietary switches.  In fact, because Dell’s FlexAddress is enabled through the Chassis Management Controller it can be used to deliver the advantage of persistent WWN/MAC with any IO module, including Cisco, Brocade, PowerConnect, and even pass-throughs.  It’s not only more flexible, but also a much simpler and lower cost way to deliver this important functionality.  Finally, to get persistent WWN functionality with VirtualConnect, HP requires customers to buy BOTH a VirtualConnect Ethernet AND VirtualConnect Fibre Channel switch. So, if you don’t want to go down the proprietary switch route for Ethernet, HP has no way to deliver persistent WWNs for Fibre Channel.

Dell’s FlexIO technology is fully compatible with a Cisco infrastructure and enables Cisco stacking functionality (known as Virtual Blade Switch).  This reduces cabling, internal cross charges for networking, and the use of distribution layer ports. It also allows the switches internal to the blade enclosure to be managed using the same knowledge and tools as customers use to manage the rest of their network environment. So who is working to simplify IT?  It isn’t HP.  If you disagree, let me know.

What’s up with the P? (High Performance Compute Clusters, that is)

What’s up with the P?

Wed. Apr. 23, 2008

by Jeff Johnson, Enterprise Strategist

Technorati Tags: HPC,Dell,Servers,clusters

What I am learning from places like InsideHPC.com and from the guys at Dell is that HPC is rapidly scaling from supercomputer centers down to much smaller organizations. It seems a more apt term than High Performance Computing – and one that is being embraced for smaller class of clustered systems is High Productivity Computing.

Bringing the huge compute power and expertise of large scale sites to smaller packaging, easy to deploy systems is a common enough story, but it’s still an exciting thing to witness.  This is how HPC technology is going to become more useful to many more customers:  by reducing the costs and complexity of the technology and by making it easier to manage and use. 

I spoke to Tim Carroll, Senior Manager HPCC at Dell about what’s happening. What I found is that HPC and clustered systems can be affordable and manageable – even for small organizations. Cool stuff. Listen here and share.

 

http://direct2dell.com/insideit/archive/2008/04/23/what-s-up-with-the-p.aspx

The Power Smackdown in the Data Center: IT Department vs. Facilities Managers

OK, it’s not a smackdown like on TV, but it is a power struggle, so to speak. Data centers consume a lot of power in companies. In one corner you have the IT department who is tasked with keeping and meeting the IT needs of the organization, scaling and staying within what is usually a flat budget envelope. In the other corner you have the facilities manager that is trying to manage overall costs, power use, space utilization, and the needs of the organization as a whole. A couple years ago the two rarely needed to talk, except if the data center manager needed more space.

The new smackdown is about power. Not political power but electricity. Globally, electricity prices have risen nearly 60% in the past couple years. Gartner says that 50% of data centers will lack sufficient power by 2008.

IT managers haven’t really had to care too much about power consumption for a couple of reasons. Rarely has power used the data center or any other technology been isolated, so it hasn’t been tracked or measured. The primary focus has been on eliminating business disruption, building IT agility, and meeting business needs. And for most managers, 70% of their budget is spent on maintenance and managing an aging, heterogeneous infrastructure. It’s all about performance.

Facilities managers worry about the physical side of the equation: power costs, getting more compute power out of the same space, and cooling. They wonder where they will get the space, if the utility is going to be able to deliver enough power, if they have enough breakers for new equipment, exceeding rack capacity, and a lot more. For some, the only way to add a new server is to take one out.

So the two sides are forced to talk. The IT manager needs performance. The facilities manager needs control. And what happens if they don’t? Inefficiency, more complexity, and the problems will certainly get worse. But if they do collaborate great things can happen. Here are some examples of what is available today:

• Client desktop systems that use 70% less energy.

• Energy efficient servers that use up to 25% less energy, but deliver the same performance – saving up to $200 per year per server.

• Increasing compute capacity by being able to put five servers in the same power envelope as four.

• Spot cooling solutions that focus on hot spots – saving 30% or more –not on inefficiently cooling the entire room.

• Holistic solutions that reduce energy consumption by up to 75% with the same power usage, or twice the performance in the same space, or twice the number of servers in the same power envelope.

Are there reasons for the two sides to talk? Absolutely. Can the two sides, with the right outside partner, lower costs, increase performance, manage space and meet each others’ needs? Absolutely. Some companies have done a lot of work to simplify this process. But what I’m more interested in are your stories. How is the relationship between facilities and IT? How do you break down the barriers?

http://climatesaverscomputing.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

 

Simplifying Information Technology

Photo of me at 6am