4 ms·

There is something so calming and pleasant about a well-structured thesis statement: > Our thesis was that cloud computing was the future of all computing; tha

There is something so calming and pleasant about a well-structured thesis statement: > Our thesis was that cloud computing was the future of all computing; that running on-premises would remain (or become!) strategically important for many; that the entire stack — hardware and software — needed to be rethought from first principles to serve this market; and that a large, durable, public company could be built by whomever pulled it off. Very clear and logical, stating from their first principle world view what the result could be if they succeed.

chubot 1y ago
I would say it's very clear and logical ... but is it really "from first principles"? I thought that Oxide was based on OpenCompute, which is basically the rack designs that Facebook open sourced, after hiring some Google employees to build their custom data centers. This project started in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Compute_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Compute_Project https://github.com/opencomputeproject https://github.com/opencomputeproject Google definitely rebuilt the stack from first principles -- the data center was basically a huge embedded system, from power to racks to CPUs/memory/disk/network to kernel to user space to cluster software. (And no, they did not use Kubernetes.) I have no idea how active the OpenCompute project is -- is Facebook still the main contributor, and are they still releasing their new rack designs? And I also wonder how much Oxide has diverged from it? At least on the hardware side. On the software side, I guess the Illumos-derived parts and Rust parts are completely different. Well, when they say they did their own: - board designs - microcontroller OS - platform enablement software - host hypervisor - switch - integrated storage service - control plane Then yeah it seems like maybe only board designs and the switch COULD have either come from or been influenced by OpenCompute, but maybe those didn't either. (I have no idea tbh) Maybe they only got the mechanical and power stuff from OpenCompute? i.e. the parts that change more slowly
- steveklabnik 1y ago
  We initially talked about OpenCompute, yeah, but as far as I know we ended up moving away from that years ago.
- bcantrill 1y ago
  We didn't use anything from OCP. When we first started the company, we thought we might use the enclosure (and considered ourselves "OCP inspired"), but there ended up being little value in doing so (and there was a clear cost). And on the stuff that we really cared about (e.g., getting rid of the traditional BMC), we were completely at odds with OCP (where ASPEED BMCs abound!). So in the end, even the mechanical and power didn't come from OCP. We clearly build on other components (we didn't build own rectifiers!), but we absolutely built the machine from first principles.
  - chubot 1y ago
    Ah OK, thanks for clarifying! I'm glad to see these kinds of machines being built, especially with so much open source software
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    How does the Oxide 48V architecture compare to what is known about the Google/OCP architecture? Does Oxide use single stage conversion, intermediate 12V buses, or ??
    - steveklabnik 1y ago
      I'm not someone who works on this part of the product, but we talk a little about this stuff here: * https://oxide.computer/blog/how-oxide-cuts-data-center-power-consumption-in-half https://oxide.computer/blog/how-oxide-cuts-data-center-power... * https://docs.oxide.computer/guides/introduction https://docs.oxide.computer/guides/introduction I feel like we had a good Oxide and Friends on this too... https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/bringing-up-cosmo https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/bringing-up... has some info about our power setup. Anyway, I barely know anything about this topic, but I think this answers your immediate question: we convert AC -> DC once at the rack level, and then use a bus bar to distribute that to each sled. Each sled also has a converter to convert that 54V down to 12V for its own bus within each sled.
      - jeffbee 1y ago
krelian 1y ago
>public company Why does it have to be a public company though?
- steveklabnik 1y ago
  It is either that or acquisition, and we would prefer an IPO.
  - GoatInGrey 1y ago
    Speaking from the experience of 8 acquisitions/IPOs, your compensation structure will not survive public ownership. It could survive a PE acquisition, but definitely not public ownership (in my experience). I would recommend petitioning for a dual-class share structure to protect founding leadership.
    - steveklabnik 1y ago
      We agree that we don't know what the future holds, and what makes sense for early stage companies may not make sense for later ones. When anything stops working, we'll make changes. You can see this already with the secondary structure for sales. We have a while before we need to worry about that, though :)
- bcantrill 1y ago
  Because VCs need to have a way to sell their shares within the (limited) lifetime of their fund.

chubot 1y ago

I would say it's very clear and logical ... but is it really "from first principles"? I thought that Oxide was based on OpenCompute, which is basically the rack designs that Facebook open sourced, after hiring some Google employees to build their custom data centers. This project started in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Compute_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Compute_Project https://github.com/opencomputeproject https://github.com/opencomputeproject Google definitely rebuilt the stack from first principles -- the data center was basically a huge embedded system, from power to racks to CPUs/memory/disk/network to kernel to user space to cluster software. (And no, they did not use Kubernetes.) I have no idea how active the OpenCompute project is -- is Facebook still the main contributor, and are they still releasing their new rack designs? And I also wonder how much Oxide has diverged from it? At least on the hardware side. On the software side, I guess the Illumos-derived parts and Rust parts are completely different. Well, when they say they did their own: - board designs - microcontroller OS - platform enablement software - host hypervisor - switch - integrated storage service - control plane Then yeah it seems like maybe only board designs and the switch COULD have either come from or been influenced by OpenCompute, but maybe those didn't either. (I have no idea tbh) Maybe they only got the mechanical and power stuff from OpenCompute? i.e. the parts that change more slowly

steveklabnik 1y ago
We initially talked about OpenCompute, yeah, but as far as I know we ended up moving away from that years ago.
bcantrill 1y ago
We didn't use anything from OCP. When we first started the company, we thought we might use the enclosure (and considered ourselves "OCP inspired"), but there ended up being little value in doing so (and there was a clear cost). And on the stuff that we really cared about (e.g., getting rid of the traditional BMC), we were completely at odds with OCP (where ASPEED BMCs abound!). So in the end, even the mechanical and power didn't come from OCP. We clearly build on other components (we didn't build own rectifiers!), but we absolutely built the machine from first principles.
- chubot 1y ago
  Ah OK, thanks for clarifying! I'm glad to see these kinds of machines being built, especially with so much open source software
- jeffbee 1y ago
  How does the Oxide 48V architecture compare to what is known about the Google/OCP architecture? Does Oxide use single stage conversion, intermediate 12V buses, or ??
  - steveklabnik 1y ago
    I'm not someone who works on this part of the product, but we talk a little about this stuff here: * https://oxide.computer/blog/how-oxide-cuts-data-center-power-consumption-in-half https://oxide.computer/blog/how-oxide-cuts-data-center-power... * https://docs.oxide.computer/guides/introduction https://docs.oxide.computer/guides/introduction I feel like we had a good Oxide and Friends on this too... https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/bringing-up-cosmo https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/bringing-up... has some info about our power setup. Anyway, I barely know anything about this topic, but I think this answers your immediate question: we convert AC -> DC once at the rack level, and then use a bus bar to distribute that to each sled. Each sled also has a converter to convert that 54V down to 12V for its own bus within each sled.
    - jeffbee 1y ago

krelian 1y ago

>public company Why does it have to be a public company though?

steveklabnik 1y ago
It is either that or acquisition, and we would prefer an IPO.
- GoatInGrey 1y ago
  Speaking from the experience of 8 acquisitions/IPOs, your compensation structure will not survive public ownership. It could survive a PE acquisition, but definitely not public ownership (in my experience). I would recommend petitioning for a dual-class share structure to protect founding leadership.
  - steveklabnik 1y ago
    We agree that we don't know what the future holds, and what makes sense for early stage companies may not make sense for later ones. When anything stops working, we'll make changes. You can see this already with the secondary structure for sales. We have a while before we need to worry about that, though :)
bcantrill 1y ago
Because VCs need to have a way to sell their shares within the (limited) lifetime of their fund.