Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cloud Computer

oxide.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 994 posts

Re: The Cloud Computer

#951

Post by sanderjd »

latchkey wrote: post #941
sanderjd wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their hardware isn't really innovative though... Even the hardware integration isn't really innovative, as others here have pointed out. My two cents is that this isn't really an innovation business model, it's an execution business model. Their proposition seems to be that they can execute a a server rack with integrated hardware and open-source software so well that customers will love their product. Maybe they'll…

Solution looking for a problem.

You are doing the low-brow dismissal thing.

It's better to just think to yourself: "this doesn't seem like a useful product to me, I don't understand why people find it interesting, oh well", and move on.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#952

Post by sanderjd »

hollerith wrote: post #949
sanderjd wrote: post #933

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This I don't get. It's marketing copy, from a small upstart. They don't need to link to their established competitors...

OK, then at least I'm glad someone in the comments pointed out their competitors.

Agreed, it's why I read stuff like HN comments! Marketing copy is not a good source for comparative information.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#953

Post by bcantrill »

tgtweak wrote: post #902

Kick ass project, been following bcantril since before Joyent and as a (server/infra + sysadmin nerd this really hits home): Are there plans to build some public-cloud-esque software add-ons to offer cloud-native equivalents to s3, serverless-functions, message queues, etc? I feel like the "running your own datacenter" complexity of on prem is a big part of why companies go to the cloud in the first place - but that…

Great questions. We are careful about new service exposure -- object storage certainly makes sense (though having built one in the past, very mindful about trade-offs between cost/performance/availability/durability) but some higher level services may not (do not expect an Elastic Beanstalk equivalent!). There's a big gray area in the middle, where we will be customer- and demand-driven.

On accounting: yes! This is something that we have designed abstractions for from the start with respect to tenancy with our silo and project abstraction[0], and we are actively adding resource allocation and monitoring; stay tuned!

[0] https://docs.oxide.computer/guides/key-entities-and-concepts

Re: The Cloud Computer

#954

Post by latchkey »

sanderjd wrote: post #951
latchkey wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solution looking for a problem.

You are doing the low-brow dismissal thing. It's better to just think to yourself: "this doesn't seem like a useful product to me, I don't understand why people find it interesting, oh well", and move on.

No, I'm taking all of your words and distilling it down to a common saying.

I actually do think what they are doing is innovative across the board. They are taking all of the common feedback anyone who has run large scale data centers (which I have) and applying it to a brand new product. Unfortunately, they are doing it in a way that is extremely vendor specific.

  `import { Api } from "@oxide/api"`
No, thanks.

  `Understand and debug issues faster`
How is this any different than throwing Netdata onto a server?

They've got 231 repos in github...

Re: The Cloud Computer

#955

Post by bcantrill »

Fnoord wrote: post #894
wpm wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That the rack is quiet wasn’t really deliberate (and we are frankly much more interested in the often hidden power draw that blaring fan noise represents). They optimized for power. That roar of fan noise doesn't necessarily mean they're doing a better job cooling.

So for power and therefore noise. Why though? I can see how it is interesting given energy crisis plus not going to squeeze out max W for performance at the cost of energy. If that is the reason, then it is going to be more cost efficient than competitors on the longer term, at the cost of perhaps requiring more hardware to possibly scale up.

The short answer is density. Smaller fans are exponentially less efficient (that is, dissipate exponentially more power for the same airflow) and datacenters -- (and racks within them) -- have a power budget. The traditional rack-and-stack approach is held captive by a geometry that really doesn't make sense (19" wide x 1RU/2RU); if power is spent on fans (and in a traditional cram-down rack, somewhere between 20-30% of power is spent on fans), it can't be spent on compute. Density is critical, as DC footprint is often at a premium.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#956

Post by pl4nty »

parasubvert wrote: post #666
Voultapher wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, you mention Hyper-converged, can you point to anything that comes even close to the experience you presumably get from the Oxide offering.

Dell's VxRail has been very popular and successful. Not perfect, but pretty good, and I think the market leader. HPE Simplivity has done well. Also, Nutanix.

VxRail's the market leader? Last I touched it, it was a mountain of integration faults and vendors pointing fingers at each other. Maybe it's easier in larger or more traditional environments, but I'd be apprehensive of hyperconvered if VxRail's the best available

Re: The Cloud Computer

#957

Post by glandium »

bobthecowboy wrote: post #916
glandium wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like SoftIron is not shipping a rack in a single box, though.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I believe our smallest configuration is 5 servers and a few switches.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38026306 and other related threads. Oxide's product is a rack you plug in and you're done. You don't have to rack a bunch of servers yourself and cable them.

Re: The Cloud Computer

#959

Post by gary_0 »

bcantrill wrote: post #955
Fnoord wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So for power and therefore noise. Why though? I can see how it is interesting given energy crisis plus not going to squeeze out max W for performance at the cost of energy. If that is the reason, then it is going to be more cost efficient than competitors on the longer term, at the cost of perhaps requiring more hardware to possibly scale up.

The short answer is density. Smaller fans are exponentially less efficient (that is, dissipate exponentially more power for the same airflow) and datacenters -- (and racks within them) -- have a power budget. The traditional rack-and-stack approach is held captive by a geometry that really doesn't make sense (19" wide x 1RU/2RU); if power is spent on fans (and in a traditional cram-down rack, somewhere between 20-30%…

> 20-30% of power is spent on fans

Wow. It makes sense if I think about it; heat is the primary byproduct and therefore a typical server rack is chock-full of chunks of spinning copper coils and plastic fins. But still... wow.

Post reply on HN