http://itcomparison.com/Blades/Bladesibmvsdell/Bladesibmvsdell.htm

http://itcomparison.com/Blades/Bladesibmvshp/Bladesibmvshp.htm

http://itcomparison.com/Blades/Bladesibmvssun/Bladesibmvssun.htm

http://itcomparison.com/Blades/Bladesdellvshp/Bladeshpvsdell.htm

http://itcomparison.com/Blades/Bladeshpvssun/Bladeshpvssun.htm

http://itcomparison.com/Blades/Bladesdellvssun/Bladesdellvssun.htm

I hope they get to work this time.

Might I know what blade system do you have? From which vendor. Blades are different from one vendor to another. In addition, as the article states when you start with a blade vendor you are more likely are stuck with him for long term. Its not a one time investment like the normal rack mounted server. So you better know your options right from the first time. For that check out the below comparisons to educated your self of each vendor offering before you make your decision:

Dell Blade system vs hp blade system

Dell Blade system vs IBM blade system

IBM Blade system vs hp blade system

IBM Blade system vs SUN blade system

SUN Blade system vs hp blade system

SUN Blade system vs Dell blade system

I hope that save some of you some time on researching these blade vendors offering. All of them will run for your purchase. Each has his own good and bad. Only you can tell which one fit you the most.

Hope that help,
MSright

Sorry you think I’m wrong but…I didn’t suggest that SSDs are great for every situation–but that they last longer generally because they have no moving parts. They run with virtually no heat also. Besides, if you do run conventional servers, you have to have electric, network, and space for each system instead of just plugging in a new new Blade where electric, network, and space are already allocated…so am I really wrong? So, just because someone points out something explicitly to me, does it mean they’re right?

And have you changed platforms in the last 10 years or are you still using x86?

So do I. To suggest that flash drives offer a cost advantage for any save those rare applications which require high IOPS but relatively little total storage space is ludicrous given their price per GB. To ignore the fact that conventional servers can use the very same power-efficient processors, and 2.5″ drives, and flash drives (when they’re sensible), and at least very similarly efficient power supplies - even after the first of these was explicitly pointed out to you - seems to verge upon incompetence, as does suggesting (as your footwear example appears to) that people pay an up-front premium that locks them into a specific platform for a decade or so, considering the rate at which technology advances. And to tout the packaging density innovation that blades offer while studiously ignoring packaging density innovation in conventional enclosures makes one wonder about your objectivity.

Blades do offer some compelling advantages in ease of physical management, and in some situations this may actually sufficiently offset their higher up-front cost and long-term lock-in to reduce TCO. As for the rest, it still seems pretty much like hype.

- bill

The reason why Blades use less power and require less cooling is due to their design–not hype.

You have to look at the big picture in thinking of TCO–not just up front costs. Switching to Blades, or any different technology, is an up front cash investment. What you’re looking for is long-term payback and savings. Here’s an example:
You need a new pair of shoes and you could buy the $50 pair that lasts 2 years or the $150 pair that will last 10+. Do the math.
Blades are the expensive pair of shoes and will outlast the xU systems and cost less overall. They outlast due to design, lower heat, and some have no moving parts (solid state drives). I’ve done the math–other companies have done the math and Blades are a good investment for those who use a lot of servers. Blades are the future.
And, I would tell you plainly if I thought Blades were all hype–I rarely pull my punches.

In fact only #9 seems to be more thruth than fiction.

New 1/2U servers (dual servers in a 1 U chassis) also support 14 servers in 7U rack space, would have plenty of redundancy, virtualization, etc. But if you want 16 servers, the Twin 1U approach wins by 6U!

$9K for base blade chassis - with some options around $20K AUD. So definitely cheaper than HP solution.

If you are only ever going to run 8 servers - then a blade solution is probably not for you. If you can see yourself populating the blade chassis with another 8 blades then you might want to consider this seriously as an option. The more you buy the cheaper the overall cost will be.

cheers from downunder