5 ms·

This is just my first impressions so it may be wrong. Looking at their blog - their proposition appears to me to be, AWS, Google and Azure can build and manage

This is just my first impressions so it may be wrong. Looking at their blog - their proposition appears to me to be, AWS, Google and Azure can build and manage their systems better than Random Corp. trying to build and manage their own servers by ordering from Dell. Oxide Computer will try and bridge that gap and let anyone buy efficient, manageable servers. This is of some interest to me as there are lots of use cases for which cloud isn't practical or has regulatory challenges, and this should give organizations for whom this is an issue some good options. If nothing else, it'll be interesting as a target for Google's Anthos or Azure's On-Premises service. Edit: This is a good summary[1], I think: > Hyperscalers like Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have what I like to call “infrastructure privilege” since they long ago decided they could build their own hardware and software to fulfill their needs better than commodity vendors. We are working to bring that same infrastructure privilege to everyone else! [1] https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/born-in-a-garage/ https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/born-in-a-garage/

tw04 7y ago
Call me skeptical. Part of what allowed Google/Amazon/Facebook to "build their own servers" is that they're ordering 10,000+ at a time from an ODM like Foxconn who doesn't want to deal with people that want 100 at a time. But with that comes rigid standardization... which typically hasn't worked well in the enterprise. Everybody wants to be cloud-like until they figure out being cloud-like means you lose all of your hardware-level flexibility. Oh you wanted one with 512GB of memory instead of 768? Too bad.
- hinkley 7y ago
  I'm guardedly optimistic. Some people are being nervous about how vague they're being but I'm gonna wait an see if they're just playing very close to the vest. The problem with talking excitedly about the things that are safe to talk about is that it makes it very obviously awkward what isn't being talked about. I'm sure a lot of us got a refresher in how that feels last week. Backblaze has their own custom server racks and we seem to like them just fine.
  - exikyut 7y ago
    (What happened last week? Saw a few articles, honestly unsure which applies here)
    - hinkley 7y ago
      Oh, Thanksgiving. The most important time of year for Americans not to bring up politics or old hurts.
  - tw04 7y ago
    Backblaze isn't selling their custom server racks to third parties to make a profit... they built their own initially because they were trying to make it as cheap as humanly possible and cut a ton of corners to get there. They had a ton of growing pains too which is why we're on POD version 6.0, soon to be 7.0. They modified as they ran into hurdles, most of which would've been avoided going with one of the major server vendors. On the flip side, they would have spent a TON more money on features they decided they didn't need, and their business model likely wouldn't have been viable with that overhead. I HIGHLY doubt Oxide is offering to make small batch custom servers as part of their "bring the cloud on-prem". It's FAR more likely they're talking about taking OCP designs and adding their own software management stack on top.
- auiya 7y ago
  I disagree. You don't lose hardware level flexibility, you gain hardware level flexibility. "Oh you wanted to only use 256GB memory and X CPU cycles during this time period, unless Y event occurs in which case boost to 1024GB and 4X CPU cycles? And then prioritize which jobs to dynamically scale back in order to make room? Since all your gear is homogeneous and uses a sane management scheduler that's now possible". You don't get that using disparate hardware typically.
- signal11 7y ago
  > Oh you wanted one with 512GB of memory instead of 768? Too bad. I believe Enterprises are (slowly) learning this lesson. If nothing else Pivotal Cloud Foundry and various on-prem k8s solutions are softening them up.
samstave 7y ago
>Oxide Computer will try and bridge that gap and let anyone buy efficient, manageable servers. >This is of some interest to me as there are lots of use cases for which cloud isn't practical or has regulatory challenges, and this should give organizations for whom this is an issue some good options. Sounds, to me, as the exact premise of OpenStack, no?
- wmf 7y ago
  The premise maybe, but in reality OpenStack (initially) punted on a lot of essential parts like physical server management, installation, upgrades, monitoring, billing, etc. Just things like firmware updates are super-buggy in existing servers so I imagine Oxide will be working on that.
  - sitkack 7y ago
    I think Oxide bought the rights to the PC Weasel, now with thunderbolt support. https://web.archive.org/web/20110513121449/http://www.realweasel.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110513121449/http://www.realwe...
martyvis 7y ago
It seems like they are dismissing the hyperconverged offerings from Simplivity, Nutanix, Azure Stack, etc which are definitely on premises offerings that would aim to do what they are setting out on
- wmf 7y ago
  There's probably room in the market for something in between hyperconverged and "here are some Dell servers, good luck".

tw04 7y ago

Call me skeptical. Part of what allowed Google/Amazon/Facebook to "build their own servers" is that they're ordering 10,000+ at a time from an ODM like Foxconn who doesn't want to deal with people that want 100 at a time. But with that comes rigid standardization... which typically hasn't worked well in the enterprise. Everybody wants to be cloud-like until they figure out being cloud-like means you lose all of your hardware-level flexibility. Oh you wanted one with 512GB of memory instead of 768? Too bad.

hinkley 7y ago
I'm guardedly optimistic. Some people are being nervous about how vague they're being but I'm gonna wait an see if they're just playing very close to the vest. The problem with talking excitedly about the things that are safe to talk about is that it makes it very obviously awkward what isn't being talked about. I'm sure a lot of us got a refresher in how that feels last week. Backblaze has their own custom server racks and we seem to like them just fine.
- exikyut 7y ago
  (What happened last week? Saw a few articles, honestly unsure which applies here)
  - hinkley 7y ago
    Oh, Thanksgiving. The most important time of year for Americans not to bring up politics or old hurts.
- tw04 7y ago
  Backblaze isn't selling their custom server racks to third parties to make a profit... they built their own initially because they were trying to make it as cheap as humanly possible and cut a ton of corners to get there. They had a ton of growing pains too which is why we're on POD version 6.0, soon to be 7.0. They modified as they ran into hurdles, most of which would've been avoided going with one of the major server vendors. On the flip side, they would have spent a TON more money on features they decided they didn't need, and their business model likely wouldn't have been viable with that overhead. I HIGHLY doubt Oxide is offering to make small batch custom servers as part of their "bring the cloud on-prem". It's FAR more likely they're talking about taking OCP designs and adding their own software management stack on top.
auiya 7y ago
I disagree. You don't lose hardware level flexibility, you gain hardware level flexibility. "Oh you wanted to only use 256GB memory and X CPU cycles during this time period, unless Y event occurs in which case boost to 1024GB and 4X CPU cycles? And then prioritize which jobs to dynamically scale back in order to make room? Since all your gear is homogeneous and uses a sane management scheduler that's now possible". You don't get that using disparate hardware typically.
signal11 7y ago
> Oh you wanted one with 512GB of memory instead of 768? Too bad. I believe Enterprises are (slowly) learning this lesson. If nothing else Pivotal Cloud Foundry and various on-prem k8s solutions are softening them up.

samstave 7y ago

>Oxide Computer will try and bridge that gap and let anyone buy efficient, manageable servers. >This is of some interest to me as there are lots of use cases for which cloud isn't practical or has regulatory challenges, and this should give organizations for whom this is an issue some good options. Sounds, to me, as the exact premise of OpenStack, no?

wmf 7y ago
The premise maybe, but in reality OpenStack (initially) punted on a lot of essential parts like physical server management, installation, upgrades, monitoring, billing, etc. Just things like firmware updates are super-buggy in existing servers so I imagine Oxide will be working on that.
- sitkack 7y ago
  I think Oxide bought the rights to the PC Weasel, now with thunderbolt support. https://web.archive.org/web/20110513121449/http://www.realweasel.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110513121449/http://www.realwe...

martyvis 7y ago

It seems like they are dismissing the hyperconverged offerings from Simplivity, Nutanix, Azure Stack, etc which are definitely on premises offerings that would aim to do what they are setting out on

wmf 7y ago
There's probably room in the market for something in between hyperconverged and "here are some Dell servers, good luck".