61–70 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Attest" refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#REMOTE-ATTES... , not forced code signing
I'm familiar with the concept. Does this mean that attestation to a different root of trust than Oxide will also be feasible, and that this is just a default?
It sure looks pretty, but appears to be - - dedicated to virtualization, done their way - rather inflexible in hardware specs - vendor-locked at the rack - if you have hardware from someone else, it can't live in the same cabinet I guess if you just want a pretty data center in a box and look like what they consider a 'normal' enterprise to be, it might appeal. But I'm not sure how many people asked for Apple-style h…
Intel is losing on the client and server. everyone is jumping ship to either ARM or AMD for client/server. hopefully Intel new engineer CEO can turn it around like AMD engineer CEO (Lisa Su)
First, congrats! But second, I'd love to understand the compute vs storage tradeoff chosen here. Looking at the (pretty!) picture [1], I was shocked to see "Wow, it's mostly storage?". Is that from going all flash? Heading to https://oxide.computer/product for more details, lists: - 2048 cores - 30 TB of memory - 1024 TB of flash (1 PiB) Given how much of the rack is storage, I'm not sure which Milan was chosen (and…
- There's a bunch of RJ45 up top that I don't quite understand :)
- A bunch of storage sleds
- A compute sled, 100G QSFP switch, compute sled sandwich
- Power distribution (rectifiers, I'd think, unless it's AC to the trays?)
- Another CSC sandwich
- More storage.
I assume in reality we'd have many more cables making things less pretty, given the number of front-facing QSFPs on those ToRs.
It sure looks pretty, but appears to be - - dedicated to virtualization, done their way - rather inflexible in hardware specs - vendor-locked at the rack - if you have hardware from someone else, it can't live in the same cabinet I guess if you just want a pretty data center in a box and look like what they consider a 'normal' enterprise to be, it might appeal. But I'm not sure how many people asked for Apple-style h…
> - rather inflexible in hardware specs
> - vendor-locked at the rack - if you have hardware from someone else, it can't live in the same cabinet
This describes legacy IBM platforms quite well. If they can leverage hyperscaling tech to be better and cheaper than what IBM is currently offering, that's enough to make it worthwhile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Attest" refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#REMOTE-ATTES... , not forced code signing
I'm familiar with the concept. Does this mean that attestation to a different root of trust than Oxide will also be feasible, and that this is just a default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, single system image is really expensive (see Superdome Flex) and most workloads can't justify that cost.
Could one reimplement SSI at the OS layer, similar to existing distributed OS's? Distributed shared memory is usually dismissed because of the overhead involved in typical scenarios, but this kind of hardware platform might make it feasible.
It sure looks pretty, but appears to be - - dedicated to virtualization, done their way - rather inflexible in hardware specs - vendor-locked at the rack - if you have hardware from someone else, it can't live in the same cabinet I guess if you just want a pretty data center in a box and look like what they consider a 'normal' enterprise to be, it might appeal. But I'm not sure how many people asked for Apple-style h…
The specs are damn good. When it is all top-of-the-line, inflexibility is kind of a mute point. Where else are you going to go?
> But I'm not sure how many people asked for Apple-style hardware in the DC.
Well integrated, performant and reliable hardware that runs VMs where you can put anything on it is pretty much all everyone running their own hardware is looking for.
Honestly I am surprised how many here completely misunderstand what their value proposition is.
Congrats Oxide team! More competition in this space is always a good thing. I'm curious about management. Can the rack operate completely standalone? I assume when you have multiple there will be some management abstraction above the rack layer? The closest direct equivalent that I can think of to this is AWS outposts. Are there any others that I'm forgetting?
The density they're getting here is significantly higher than AWS Outposts, which is interesting. The top-end (~$600k) AWS Outposts seem to max out at around 1k CPUs and 4.5 TB RAM in a rack (e.g. 12x m5.24xlarge = 12x 384 GB), while this rack can house 2k CPUs and 30 TB (!) RAM.
First, congrats! But second, I'd love to understand the compute vs storage tradeoff chosen here. Looking at the (pretty!) picture [1], I was shocked to see "Wow, it's mostly storage?". Is that from going all flash? Heading to https://oxide.computer/product for more details, lists: - 2048 cores - 30 TB of memory - 1024 TB of flash (1 PiB) Given how much of the rack is storage, I'm not sure which Milan was chosen (and…
+1 to congrats -- my read on this: - There's a bunch of RJ45 up top that I don't quite understand :) - A bunch of storage sleds - A compute sled, 100G QSFP switch, compute sled sandwich - Power distribution (rectifiers, I'd think, unless it's AC to the trays?) - Another CSC sandwich - More storage. I assume in reality we'd have many more cables making things less pretty, given the number of front-facing QSFPs on thos…