On the network I/O side, though, HP can run with Cisco switching modules to keep intrachassis communication within the chassis
itself. The Cisco modules behave exactly like external Cisco switches, which will please network admins already familiar with
Cisco's hardware. External uplinks take the form of eight gigabit Ethernet ports per switch module, resulting in a total of
eight ports that can be trunked to datacenter core switches.
Management ups and downs
BladeSystem runs its own internal management console, accessible via the Web, that can stand alone or be integrated into an
HP Insight Manager installation. Multiple c-Class chassis may be managed collectively in this manner, regardless of whether
Insight Manager is in place, which is quite useful for large data centers. Administrator-driven tools offer a wide array of
monitoring options, from current and maximum power utilization and environmental data to blade health and performance information.
Internal chassis management is even more impressive. The chassis has enough smarts to determine the heat and power loads present
and advise admins on proper fan population and placement. It will adapt power supplies as needed and where needed, as well
as drop power levels to quiescent blades when possible. This results in lower heat production and power consumption, which
are hot buttons (pun intended) as far as blade development and deployment go.
Not everything with the HP blade, however, worked as smoothly as its chassis management. The console redirection available
in each blade's ILO cards was somewhat lacking, with problematic mouse tracking and display artifacts. This can be very irritating
when work must be performed directly to the console of each blade. The only other console redirection method involves using
a front-mounted dongle port to connect a keyboard, monitor, and mouse directly to each blade. Not pretty, but it does work.
We also encountered a few oddities with the chassis, including one blade that seemed to have intermittent connectivity problems
and another that spontaneously lost contact with its internal SmartArray RAID controller. It's highly likely that the pre-release
nature of the blades contributed to these issues.
Nevertheless, HP completed the full SPEChpc benchmark suite runs at the small and medium dataset levels within a single day,
complying with the testing parameters. A few lab hiccups aside, the BladeSystem c-Class is an impressive piece of engineering.
The wide variety of blade options, including the disk-only blades; up-front display; adaptive power and cooling features;
and density show that the c-Class definitely adheres to HP's "Invent" slogan.
Sun Blade 8000 Modular System
Although the other blade solutions in our test ranged in size from 7U to 10U, Sun's system came in the door at a whopping
19U. Of course, Sun's take on blades is a little different: It was the only blade solution to support four CPUs per blade,
and can handle 10 blades per chassis. With dual-core AMD Opteron CPUs, this equates to 160 cores in a single 42U rack.
 |
| The Bottom Line |
Dell PowerEdge 1955 Blade System Dell, dell.com
|
Very Good 8.3 |
 |
| criteria |
score |
weight |
| Availability |
8 |
25% |
 |
| Performance |
9 |
20% |
 |
| Scalability |
9 |
20% |
 |
| Management |
7 |
15% |
 |
| Serviceability |
8 |
10% |
 |
| Value |
8 |
10% |
 |
|
 |
Cost: $75,622 as tested, including 10 blades, external InfiniBand switch, cabling
Platforms: Linux, Windows Server 2003
Bottom Line: Dell’s PowerEdge 1955 surprised us in the SPEChpc tests, turning in the best score by far, and it offers unique features such
as the embedded Avocent KVM. In spite of being the smallest chassis (7U) in the test, it offers a significant amount of processing
power. The management can run stand-alone or integrated into Dell’s OpenManage framework, but isn’t terribly impressive either
way. All things considered, the PowerEdge 1955 offers the best bang for the buck.
|
 |
About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology
|
|
 |
| The Bottom Line |
HP BladeSystem c-Class HP, hp.com
|
Very Good 8.3 |
 |
| criteria |
score |
weight |
| Availability |
8 |
25% |
 |
| Performance |
8 |
20% |
 |
| Scalability |
9 |
20% |
 |
| Management |
8 |
15% |
 |
| Serviceability |
9 |
10% |
 |
| Value |
8 |
10% |
 |
|
 |
Cost: $66,902 as tested with eight blades
Platforms: Linux, Windows Server 2003
Bottom Line: HP’s brand-new quad-core Intel blades made their debut in this test, delivering eight total cores across two sockets in each
half-height blade. The c-Class offers an impressive 16 blades per 10U chassis, and an equally impressive array of I/O options,
including integrated Cisco switching modules. We did see some relatively minor hardware problems in the lab, possibly due
to the pre-release status of the blades. Overall, the c-Class is solidly built and reasonably priced for a high-end blade
system.
|
 |
About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology
|
|
 |
| The Bottom Line |
Sun Blade 8000 Modular System Sun Microsystems, sun.com
|
Very Good 8.2 |
 |
| criteria |
score |
weight |
| Availability |
8 |
25% |
 |
| Performance |
7 |
20% |
 |
| Scalability |
9 |
20% |
 |
| Management |
9 |
15% |
 |
| Serviceability |
8 |
10% |
 |
| Value |
8 |
10% |
 |
|
 |
Cost: $101,000 as tested with four blades
Platforms: Solaris x86, Linux, Windows Server 2003
Bottom Line: Sun’s system is more of a consolidated server structure than true blades. Each server module offers a four-socket Opteron
mainboard with up to 64GB of RAM, and Sun fits 10 modules into a 19U chassis that’s just bursting with I/O options. Its surprisingly
poor performance in the lab is likely due to poor optimization on the SPEChpc tests. Either way, it cost Sun on the final
score -- but the blades are impressively powerful, and a great match for a virtualization infrastructure.
|
 |
About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology
|
|