4 ms·

> Wouldn't they be vulnerable, BTW, to an OCP integrator offering the same functionality with plug-compatible parts? There's such a small market of folks openl

> Wouldn't they be vulnerable, BTW, to an OCP integrator offering the same functionality with plug-compatible parts? There's such a small market of folks openly selling OCP accepted or inspired (OCP's terminology) systems. You definitely are gonna need to get quotes. OCP does a ton of super great things, but alas it seems like actually making reference designs for computers has somewhat fallen to the wayside. I could be totally missing the goods here, but I see a bunch of very abstract system configuration specifications in https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/Working https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/Working . Please, would love to be wrong here, but: I don't see actual plans for building systems. Just very abstract OCP just doesn't seem like it means all that much. Sure sometimes they have good specs that one can ask for. But in terms of actually building systems it still seems like a free for all, that OCP offers little guidance.

rbanffy 3y ago
> OCP just doesn't seem like it means all that much. Sure, but a pre-assembled rack of OCP inspired (and compatible) hardware combined with the right software would be a significant competitor, with the advantage that parts of different specs (and still compatible) could be sourced from various suppliers allowing the system to be continuously expanded and/or updated. What they seem to offer is mainframe-like throughput with generic software (mainframes also run Linux, and do that really well) and proprietary hardware made from generic parts.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  That's just a fundamentally different company you are describing. That's not the kind of company they wanted to build and that approach simply wouldn't result in the product they envisioned. If OCP stuff with some extra software could have easily enabled this kind of product, then the company wouldn't have to exist in the first place. > sourced from various suppliers They deliberately adopted a single supplier strategy. Again this is exactly what they did not want. See their 'Common Wisdom' podcast. Multiple suppliers have advantages, but also disadvantages. > What they seem to offer is mainframe-like throughput with generic software The software isn't generic at all, its very costume but unlike with a mainframe open all the way down. And a mainframe is just a very different architecture, the architecture isn't really like a mainframe at all. > and proprietary hardware made from generic parts Its their own costume board design both for the server and switch, a very different architecture overall. It depends what you mean by generic parts. Sure like everybody else they didn't design every single part themselves. But how the parts are combined and enabled with software is the unique selling point.

rbanffy 3y ago

> OCP just doesn't seem like it means all that much. Sure, but a pre-assembled rack of OCP inspired (and compatible) hardware combined with the right software would be a significant competitor, with the advantage that parts of different specs (and still compatible) could be sourced from various suppliers allowing the system to be continuously expanded and/or updated. What they seem to offer is mainframe-like throughput with generic software (mainframes also run Linux, and do that really well) and proprietary hardware made from generic parts.

panick21_ 3y ago
That's just a fundamentally different company you are describing. That's not the kind of company they wanted to build and that approach simply wouldn't result in the product they envisioned. If OCP stuff with some extra software could have easily enabled this kind of product, then the company wouldn't have to exist in the first place. > sourced from various suppliers They deliberately adopted a single supplier strategy. Again this is exactly what they did not want. See their 'Common Wisdom' podcast. Multiple suppliers have advantages, but also disadvantages. > What they seem to offer is mainframe-like throughput with generic software The software isn't generic at all, its very costume but unlike with a mainframe open all the way down. And a mainframe is just a very different architecture, the architecture isn't really like a mainframe at all. > and proprietary hardware made from generic parts Its their own costume board design both for the server and switch, a very different architecture overall. It depends what you mean by generic parts. Sure like everybody else they didn't design every single part themselves. But how the parts are combined and enabled with software is the unique selling point.