31–40 of 331 posts
It is much more expensive, though a lot less engineering work, than buying some used Tesla's on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m5...
or even brand new
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Mac Pro isn't a great value in the datacenter space. It's a single socket server that's limited to 64 GB of RAM. It's not unusual anymore to throw GPUs in rack mount systems; most of them already have the PCIe bandwidth necessary to support 4 big GPUs so it's often just a matter of getting the right riser cards. Compare a Mac Pro to an HP DL360 that can hold 4 8-core Xeons (32 cores total) and over 200GB of RAM a…
Well, they're fitting 4 sockets and 8 GPUS in the space that's normally used by 4 sockets only. Also, if you're trying to sync raw images between OS X clients and the cloud, then you're going to need OS X servers in the cloud. It'll greatly complicate the clients workflow if they can't use their built in raw converters.
Seems like you could have gotten higher density going vertical instead of horizontal. It would have been 50% taller (6U instead of 4U) but it could have held 100% more Mac Pros. A Mac Pro is 9.9 inches tall and 6.6 inches in diameter. 9.9 / 1.75 = 5.65 and 6.6 / 1.75 = 3.77 https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/
If you look at how the airflow works on that shelf, I think you'll see why I don't have confidence in that solution. The air paths to each system seem to be based on wishful thinking.
We also didn't need to go that dense after considering each host's power draw at full load. I design towards a 208v/3ph/50a circuit on each rack, and 44 Mac Pros at full load (plus a switch) are about 13.5kW in my testing. So we would need to build for 60A circuits, or not completely fill the rack, to make the vertical orientation worthwhile.
This is interesting -- they actually manage to get greater density out of this setup than many traditional rack mount systems offer. And to those questioning "Why would you use such expensive systems when commodity hardware is just as fast at half the price?" I would reply that the Mac Pro isn't all that expensive compared to most rack mount servers. If you're talking about a difference of $2000 per server, even acro…
Three possible reasons I can think of for doing this over using PCs or Linux servers: 1. Using the same operating system as the developers of the software, plus access to Apple's fantastic imaging libraries. 2. The Mac Pro, whilst expensive, is good value for money. The dual graphics cards inside it are not cheap at all. As servers with GPUs are fairly niche, this might actually be a cheaper solution. 3. The form fac…
The Mac Pro isn't a great value in the datacenter space. It's a single socket server that's limited to 64 GB of RAM. It's not unusual anymore to throw GPUs in rack mount systems; most of them already have the PCIe bandwidth necessary to support 4 big GPUs so it's often just a matter of getting the right riser cards. Compare a Mac Pro to an HP DL360 that can hold 4 8-core Xeons (32 cores total) and over 200GB of RAM a…
I'm getting the how, just not the why
Isnt this ridiculously expensive? Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
Seems like you could have gotten higher density going vertical instead of horizontal. It would have been 50% taller (6U instead of 4U) but it could have held 100% more Mac Pros. A Mac Pro is 9.9 inches tall and 6.6 inches in diameter. 9.9 / 1.75 = 5.65 and 6.6 / 1.75 = 3.77 https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/
It's really kind of mind-boggling that Apple makes and sells the Pro, which can be upgraded to a really nice high performance GPU workstation, but then doesn't sell the same hardware in rack mountable forms for clusterable computing. I'm sure they've performed some kind of market analysis for this, but there's enough differences between OSX and Linux solutions that for people who use HPC solutions (a growing market)…