Live data from Hacker News

The Cloud Computer

oxide.computer

151–160 of 994 posts

Re: The Cloud Computer

#152
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar in some ways different in others. But in terms of not being a PC architecture. Yes it is. But in many other ways its not at all like a Mainframe.

I’m not sure if “not PC architecture” is really an advantage for many customers.

It's similar to hyperscale infrastructure — it doesn't matter as long as it looks like a PC architecture from the OS running inside a VM. The layers and layers of legacy abstraction firmware, BMC, drivers BIOS, hypervisors you get with a typical on premise Dell/HP/SuperMicro/... server motherboard are responsible for a cold start lasting 20 minutes, random failures, weird packet loss, SMART telemetry malfunctions, etc.

This is the type of "PC architecture" cruft many customers have been yearning to ditch for years.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#153

> The computer that runs the cloud should be able to be purchased and not merely rented. How is this different than colo space that has been predominant for years? Perhaps simply that it can be purchased more easily and standardized like a typical cloud VM?

That it's a turnkey, vertically integrated and open platform with everything included. Seems big enough differentiator for me. It's like going to going to a restaurant with table service vs a BYOB pizza shop.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#154

> The computer that runs the cloud should be able to be purchased and not merely rented. How is this different than colo space that has been predominant for years? Perhaps simply that it can be purchased more easily and standardized like a typical cloud VM?

I believe-as a few other commenters have pointed out and you allude to, the advantage is that it can be configured and operated like a massive set of cloud VM’s. There’s monitoring, provisioning, network, etc etc all setup and fully integrated.

I imagine colo’s have something like this, but I _suspect_ operationally it’s a lot more powerful, easy to use and functionally closer to the API’s and behaviour users are used to on current cloud providers.

Now, if someone who actually knows for sure feels like chiming in, I’m happy to be corrected.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#155
post #137

Huge fan of the people behind Oxide as well as the concept behind the product. Can someone tell a layman like myself where a 44M Series A funding round lands among other Series A rounds? I was at a startup during 2021 and when we raised 25M, it was a big deal for us and seemingly huge. Compared to that 44M is insane. Is this notably high or is my frame of reference just small? Either way, I really look forward to see…

People raise those sorts of numbers for web apps all the time. It actually doesn’t sound that big for such a broad hardware and software company with long and high touch sales cycles ahead of them.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#157

I'm a bit confused about them calling it a cloud computer. The primary benefit of cloud is you spend opex instead of capex. Isn't this moving back to capex again?

That was the line we were sold by cloud vendors. There is a reason that significant portions of both native cloud and migrated workloads are shifting back to self-hosted; the cost savings never materialized. My google-fu failed to find any articles for or against my statement that weren’t paid advertising or lightweight tech summaries. StackOverflow will have to do. https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/02/20/are-companies…

Of course - every pay as you go service that goes above a certain amount of utilization will be better replaced with up front investment. But that doesn't mean that the opex model is bad in general; you've just only picked cases where it's bad.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#158

They seem to be cagey about their networking. Nothing besides vague "100GbE to the switch". Is this some home-brew asic or fpga? What offloads does it support? Is the driver upstream?

No, there's just a lot more that can be said than they wanted to fit on this one page.

Specs of the switch are available here: https://oxide.computer/product/specifications

Re: The Cloud Computer

#159
I always had a feeling that Bryan and people around kinda took the tech first approach and it never really came to a proper fruition. I think the ambition behind the engineering marvels they did over time was certainly bigger. Dtrace, Fishworks, Joyent, then this... so why is that? Perhaps the fierce refusal of joining the mainstream side (Linux)? Fingers crossed, but...

Re: The Cloud Computer

#160
post #3

Can somebody explain in a sentence or two what this actually is and what the benefits are?

In a data center you have racks of computers performing all of the workloads. At this point these racks are fairly standardized in terms of sizing and ancillary features. These are built-out to solve the following:

    * Physical space - The servers themselves require a certain amount of room and depending on the workloads assigned will need different dimensions.  These are specified in rack "units" (U) as the height dimension.  The width is fixed and depths can vary but are within a standard limit.  A rack might have something like 44U of total vertical space and each server can take anywhere from 1-4U generally.  Some equipment may even go up to 6U or 8U (or more).

    * Power - All rack equipment will require power so there are generally looms or wiring schemes to run all cabling and outlets for all powered devices in the rack.  For the most part this can be run on or in the post rails and remains hidden other than the outlet receptacles and mounted power strips.  This might also include added battery and power conditioning systems which will eat into your total vertical U budget.  Total rack power consumption is a vital figure.

    * Cooling - Most rack equipment will require some minimum amount of airflow or temperature range to operate properly.  Servers have fans but there will also be a need for airflow within the rack itself and you might have to solve unexpected issues such as temperature gradients from the floor to the ceiling of the rack.  Net heat output from workloads is a vital figure.

    * Networking - Since most rack equipment will be networked there are standard ways of cabling and patching in networks built into many racks.  This will include things such as bays for switches, some of which may eat into the vertical U budget.  These devices typically aggregate all rack traffic into a single higher-throughput network backplane that interconnects multiple racks into the broader network topology.

    * Storage - Depending on the workloads involved storage may be a major consideration and can require significant space (vertical Us), power, and cooling.  You will also need to take into account the bus interconnects between storage devices and servers.  This may also be delegated out into a SAN topology similar to a network where you have dedicated switches to connect to external storage networks.
These are some of the major challenges with rack-mounted computing in a data center among many others. What's not really illustrated here is that since all of this has become so standardized we can now fully integrate these components directly rather than buying them piece-meal and installing them in a rack.

This is what Oxide has to offer. They have built essentially an entire rack that solves the physical space, power, cooling, networking, and storage issues by simply giving you a turn-key box you plant in your data center and hook power and interconnects to. In addition it is a fully integrated solution so they can capture a lot of efficiencies that would be hard or impossible in traditional design.

As someone with a lot of data center experience I am very excited to see this. It is built by people with the correct attitude toward compute, imo.

Post reply on HN