|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||
|
Virtualization Technology We see this term tossed about with increasing frequency, but few yet understand it, and that goes for end-users, resellers, and vendors alike. In essence, virtualization technology (VT) involves the allocation of a chunk of system resources toward running a self-contained OS and application environment that operates independently of any similarly isolated environments running on the same system. For example, if a businesses has a proprietary server application designed to run 24 x 7 specifically under Windows NT 4.0, VT would allow one physical server box to run an NT4 partition while also running, say, a Windows XP partition and a Red Hat partition. Unlike dual- or multi-boot configurations, VT partitions all operate simultaneously. Whereas a company might have previously had to buy three separate server machines, VT allows one system to provide all of that functionality. Virtual machine management software, such as from Microsoft (www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver), VMware (www.vmware.com), or Xen (www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen) handles resource allocation between the various partitions so that conflicts don't arise. Those who play in the VT space know that virtual machine software has been with us for years, but by implementing hardware hooks in the underlying platform, resource utilization efficiency and overall system stability are significantly improved. The real-world and immediate benefits of virtualization should not be underestimated. Obviously, businesses can save considerable funds by being able to consolidate multiple server configurations into one system. (You may need to upgrade the system resources accordingly to handle concurrent partitions.) But also consider the possibilities for enhancing server stability. For a mission critical application, you could have two mirrored VT partitions so that if one crashes the other can immediately become primary and avert any downtime. You could test a new application on a client's existing server without having to create a new test system—an especially important consideration if some of the client's server components are no longer available. Less hardware is required for provisioning and rollback contingencies. In fact, Microsoft doesn't even charge for standby virtual machines. Security is one of the most important benefits of virtualization, and there are several aspects to it. The most important of these is fault isolation. We've all seen application crashes take down multiple windows in a multitasking environment, sometimes even resulting in "blue screen of death" errors. In a VT setting, application crashes cannot spread to concurrent virtual machines. Similarly, it's practically impossible for hacking exploits made against one active partition to break into another. A virus is unlikely to infect more than one virtual machine. One exception might be a virus that attacks fundamental hardware resources, such as a boot sector virus. However, in this case, the system builder might have taken the precaution of implementing separate hard drives for each virtual machine. Also note that VT allows for differential security, meaning that each virtual machine can have different security settings for different users. The list of VT benefits keeps going. Companies can reduce costs on migrations because virtual machine managers allow for the emulation of just about any system, and software stacks are easily ported. Software development becomes more streamlined. Server risk levels are reduced in several ways. As of Bensley's launch, Intel was the only CPU manufacturer offering virtualization technology in its server line, and for sure no other competitor in the market has the resources and alliances within the virtual machine community to match Intel's breadth of compatibility and stability. I/O Acceleration You know that feeling you get when you should be busy closing system sales but instead you're handling some persistent, vexing support issue? Many servers have a similar problem. They should be crunching on their primary application's dataset, but instead they're stuck devoting a bunch of system resources to ploughing through the TCP/IP stack. Network traffic is a processor killer. That's why you have third-party TCP/IP Offload Enginge (TOE) cards that plug into some servers in order to shoulder much of this load, but such cards are relatively rare because of spotty industry support and unjustly high costs.
I/O Acceleration Technology is no small advance. Intel tests of Bensley against last year's Lindenhurst Xeon generation conducted on a six-port Linux box show up to twice the maximum data throughput and greater than 60% CPU overhead reduction. And whereas TOE technology requires one card for each LAN port, I/OAT can scale across up to eight Gigabit Ethernet ports or one 10-Gigabit port. So if you want to assure customers that more of their server investment dollars are going toward completing the tasks they want rather than extraneous network crunching, Bensley's I/OAT is a tremendous value-add. Power Toolkit While nowhere near as complex as the preceding platform facets, the Intel Power Toolkit is a software package that works with enabled Bensley hardware to show system power utilization. This shouldn't be confused with Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST), an established power-saving feature set found throughout Intel's modern CPU lines, including the Bensley processors. EIST is a processor feature that reduces CPU power utilization. However, the Power Toolkit can show the benefits of EIST in an Intel server. Power Toolkit is a better selling tool than some might suspect at first glance. Many customers are "show me the money" types, and the usual form of proof when it comes to lower power computers is the monthly electric bill. This can be hard to leverage in a server sales process when you haven't even closed a sale yet, much less deployed a fleet of low-voltage systems. Power Toolkit helps fill this gap with a clear demonstration of power savings your clients can't ignore. The Intangibles You give heed to intangible assets when reading a balance sheet; the same should be done when evaluating server platforms. How many vendor support sites do you need to dig through when hunting down an error? How many of the component vendors involved offer 24 x 7, toll-free support? When there's a hardware fault, do you have advance swapping at your disposal? And perhaps most importantly, how much time and money are you going to have to spend validating each server or workstation solution for your clients?
Companies like ASUS, Supermicro, and Tyan make excellent Bensley platform products, each of which has its own advantages. But many resellers prefer to keep things simple and buy pre-validated Intel barebones systems. Nothing else in the dual-processor (DP) server/workstation space offers the same class of rigorous quality control and one-stop, industry-leading support. Inside Dempsey Again, things are not always what they seem at first glance. Perhaps you noticed that when Bensley launched in May, there was industry messaging about product being immediately available in the channel—which it was. You could start selling Bensley servers based on the "Dempsey" Xeon 5000-series processors as of launch day, May 23rd, with plenty of product in distribution to go around. But perhaps you saw that few if any big OEMs were actually selling Bensley, and everyone was adopting a "wait for Woodcrest" posture. As you'll see, this was and remains a very big mistake. In a nutshell, Dempsey is a NetBurst architecture descendant while the follow-up Xeon, the "Woodcrest" Xeon 5100-series, is based on the newer and more efficient Core architecture. Regardless of what the original roadmaps may have called for, it worked out that Woodcrest was able to reach market just a couple of months after Dempsey, hence the mass impulse to wait. But if this logic held true across all technologies, no one would have kept on buying 2G cell phones when 3G technology debuted. The reality is that 2G phones still sell well because lots of people don't need or want to pay for the newer features in third-generation products. Same story here. Dempsey offers all the same Bensley platform advantages as Woodcrest, but you're trading some performance and power savings for lower price points. First things first. We started 2006 with "Paxville" dual-core Xeon chips for dual-processor (DP) machines. This 90 nm, 64-bit-compatible, dual-core part used an 800 MHz front-side bus (FSB), and the fastest parts in the family burned through 135W. A single-core DP variant dubbed Irwindale dropped to 110W while an LV version for ultra-dense servers arrived at 55W. Neither Paxville nor Irwindale supported virtualization technology or the other Bensley platform advantages described above. With the second quarter and the move to Dempsey, matters improved. Dempsey makes the hop to the 65 nm process ("Cedar Mill" core) and widens the FSB to 1,066 MHz at the high-end while scaling back to 667 MHz on the value parts. All Dempsey processors preserve Hyper-Threading, so DP Dempsey systems sport four physical and eight logical threads. The top speed Dempsey part, the 3.73 GHz Xeon 5080, specs at 130W while more mainstream SKUs only max out at 90W. All Dempsey chips offer 2 x 2MB of L2 cache, Execute Disable bit support, and 64-bit extensions compatibility. Now, you may ask why someone would want a 95W server chip running on a 667 MHz bus when cooler, faster chips are now arriving in droves. Simple: price. The 3.0 GHz Xeon 5050 launched with reseller pricing under $190. The 2.66 GHz Xeon 5030 landed under $170. Just as Intel had used the Pentium D 805 to blow single-core desktop chips off the map, these two entry-level Dempseys aimed for the same result in the server/workstation space. (Intel estimates state that 70% to 80% of all server processors will be dual-core by the end of 2006.) On the whole, Dempsey remains the lowest priced Xeon series in Intel's history. Some people remain skeptical about pursuing a low-cost strategy in the server processor space, arguing that anyone willing to spend the money on a dual-processor configuration won't mind shelling out more for Woodcrest. Conversely, if budget really is a serious constraint, a uni-processor (UP) system based on Conroe is now feasible. In the mid-tier and enterprise spaces, this line of thought is probably valid. In the SMB market, though, you don't have to search far to find Celeron-based "servers" for $499. Clearly, someone out there is buying low-cost server platforms, and the prospect of being able to pick up a fully validated, eight-thread, DP server for under $1,000 is going to rock a lot of SMB buyers back on their heels. The delta in BoM costs going from what is more or less a desktop system to a bona fide DP server backed by all the platform advantages outlined above is ultimately negligible to any business running critical applications. In short, Dempsey is a golden opportunity. Plenty of buyers don't need cutting-edge speed and aren't sensitive about power consumption. They just want maximum bang for the fewest bucks, and that means Dempsey. As for tier-one competition in this niche—well, there is little to none. Most of them took a pass to wait for Woodcrest and the higher price structure that goes with it. "We believe this is a tremendous opportunity for the channel," says Intel's Todd Garrigues. "Woodcrest is a phenomenal part, and it'll have tremendous, aggressive pricing, as well. But I believe most OEMs waited for Woodcrest, and it could take months for validation and everything. So there's a nice window here for the channel to get out and make a lot of noise around dual-core at terrific price points. That's in the UP space. Now imagine you've got a value dual-processor board with chips that cost just over $150 apiece. Imagine the workstation you could put together for about $1,000. And because more of the tier-ones passed over Dempsey, these price points are by and large channel-only." If some customers are interested in Dempsey but worry about upgradeability and revalidation under Woodcrest, don't worry. The two chips both use Socket 771 and are interchangeable. Moreover, according to Intel, nearly all of the validation work done on Bensley/Dempsey applies to Bensley/Woodcrest save perhaps for a small BIOS change. A transition from one to the other will be virtually transparent. ...more |
||||||||||||||
 Back to top
|
||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2006 RAM Magazine. All rights reserved.
Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form. |
||||||||||||||
