41–50 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All discussed in the article: "Parts of our technology are built using OS X’s graphics frameworks, which offer high quality output and excellent performance... Building on OS X technologies means we’re dependent on Apple hardware for this part of the service, but we aren’t necessarily limited to Mac Minis."
Ahh gotcha.. Makes sense.
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)…
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.
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)…
One can certainly imagine Pixar or whoever having a data-centre of Macs, but at their scale, where they also write all the software for their rendering pipeline, they can easily make that software cross-platform such that developers can test-render on a Mac, then grid-render on a Linux farm without any friction.
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/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Right; which is why I was surprised that OS X stacks up as favorably as it does. But I wouldn't call it a great value since it's still much more expensive than a traditional rack mount setup. From a density perspective it's really not bad at all, which is a testament to how well-engineered the Mac Pro is.
Reminds me of a tube amp.
Server hardware evaluation by how well it comes in in photos.
Isnt this ridiculously expensive? Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
Nope, it's not ridiculously expensive. The GPUs in the Mac Pro are actually an exceptionally good value per gflop (when I last did a comparison a few months ago). GPUs that will work in servers are not cheap -- a comparable AMD FirePro S7000 is $1000, and the Mac Pro has two of them.
There's the cost of having these Mac Pro chassis fabricated, but they're passive hunks of metal with some cabling run. Nothing too expensive there, and economies of scale are on our side.
The Mac Pros are at least 5x more cost effective than Mac Minis (per gflop, total operating cost), and they're substantially more cost effective per gflop than doing something like EC2 G2 instances. My estimate is that moving to Linux servers would save us about 10-15% per gflop, but that could easily be eaten up by the engineering time needed to migrate.