Ten blades fit into a single Dell chassis, resulting in a single rack density of 60 dual-socket systems. With the soon-to-be-released
quad-core Intel chips, this equates to 240 cores per rack, with a maximum power draw of 3.6 kW.
Each blade sports two 2.5-inch SAS or SATA hot-swap drives with hardware RAID0/1, expanding up to 32GB of DDR2 RAM and dual
or quad-core CPUs. The external I/O layout is similar to the HP solution, with integrated switching across a passive midplane
and either an integrated Cisco 3030 or a Dell PowerConnect 5316M gigabit blade switch module. Straight gigabit Ethernet pass-through
modules are available, as well.
On the FC (Fibre Channel) side of the aisle, you have both McData and Brocade 4GB FC switch modules available, as well as
a pass-through module. The PowerEdge 1955 handles InfiniBand with a Topspin pass-through module providing a single port per
blade.
In the lab, our PowerEdge 1955 chassis sported a PowerConnect 5316M switch, which is accessible at the console level via the
chassis management tool's CLI. Of the 16 ports on the switch, 10 are reserved for blades at one port per blade, and the other
six are broken out into RJ45 ports on the back of the module.
We successfully trunked this module to a Cisco 4948-10G switch to provide 6Gb of throughput to the main lab network. It would
be nice to see 10 Gigabit Ethernet support in this chassis, but then, none of the blade systems we evaluated could do 10 Gig
— yet.
Access made easy
One of the Dell system's unique features is the integrated KVM switch. It's a Dell-branded Avocent switch that has internal
connections to each blade, and breaks out into a standard PS/2 and VGA port via a dongle on the back of the chassis. This
permits quick and easy direct KVM access to each blade, and can uplink to another KVM switch relatively easily.
 |
Further, this same KVM module doubles as an Avocent digital KVM port, permitting instant integration into another Avocent/Dell
KVM switch to make management even easier. Each blade also has a front-mounted dongle connector that can support a directly
connected monitor and keyboard. It's the best direct (non-IP) console management of any blade system.
The PowerEdge 1955 Blade System would be quite at home in a standard datacenter running a single server per blade, in an HPC
environment serving as a low-footprint collection of compute nodes, or in a virtualization scenario (the Intel VT extensions
are available, but disabled by default). In fact, when VMware Virtual Infrastructure Server 3 was evaluated in the lab, VMware
engineers chose to use the Dell chassis to run all their tests — partly because the Sun Blade 8000 system was still in use
re-running the SPEChpc tests, but also because they were sure that there were no compatibility issues with the Dell blade
system, and it had the performance levels they needed.
 |
| 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
|
|