6 ms·

This counts as a wanton act of hostility toward every server vendor in the x86 space. Is this payback for all of the PC players adopting Chromebook and Android

by alrs 13y ago

This counts as a wanton act of hostility toward every server vendor in the x86 space. Is this payback for all of the PC players adopting Chromebook and Android, or is this the tipping point where MS has decided not to care about selling Windows Server and instead cares only about driving down its own costs to deploy Azure and O365?

wmf 13y ago
It's just to save money. Microsoft has been designing their own servers for years and Open Compute designs have also been available for a while, so any damage to the server vendors is well underway. ODM server sales increased 45% last year (granted, from a small base).
Spooky23 13y ago
Windows Server isn't like the PC OS, it's mostly sold via Select and Enterprise agreements. Microsoft's pricing model is ingenious -- pay a couple of thousand bucks per socket for the OS + half that for the entire system center suite. HyperV in 2012R2 is pretty sweet... it will become increasingly difficult to justify additional investments in the VMWare stack.
- couradical 13y ago
  This is really something I think people overlook. For a 2 socket server, the total cost for as many VMs as you want is under 8K in licensing for OS, Virtualization platforms, management tools, with little to no limitation. I run a Hyper-V shop now, and I don't know that I would look back until I hit the performance limitations of Hyper-V. It doesn't make sense, especially if you're running Windows OSes on the HW.
  - ericd 13y ago
    Xen+Xen-tools with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, unlimited VMs, 2 sockets per server: $0 per server, baby. Edit: Downvotes? I'm sharing my server setup, which is simple to set up (in conjunction with Puppet), works wonderfully, doesn't involve any bullshit RAM or core/socket limits, and doesn't cost you as much as the hardware in software licensing costs. Sorry if it was a bit flippant, but I think a better approach would be to point out the advantages that these extremely expensive bits of software bring over the free open source software that many of them are ultimately based on.
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      For Unix workloads, sure, although I'd probably go the RHEL/KVM route. For windows workloads, I'm already buying HyperV, because it's part of windows. So why wouldn't I use it?
      - ericd 13y ago
        To be honest, I don't understand why anyone uses Windows as a server OS, except for things like Exchange servers. I'd probably not use HyperV because I'd only be running Windows in a container on a Xen machine with primarily linux VMs. Any particular reason for choosing RHEL? apt-get is so much better than yum in my experience, and if you go with the support contract, you're adding $1,000-$4,500 to the cost of the server over 3 years. That's a pretty substantial bump that I'd rather spend on more RAM...
        shiftpgdn 13y ago
        There is a whole world of energy (Oil) companies, hospitals and finance where $4,500 is a rounding error in IT infrastructure costs. You pay for the support contracts and licenses because A. It's what everyone else uses. B. So when something breaks you can point a finger at the vendor and say "We're waiting on them." It's more about being able to CYA and defer liability than anything.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        Using what everyone else uses and covering one's ass is a sure way to prevent your IT from generating any competitive advantages.
        shiftpgdn 13y ago
        At these companies IT is a cost center, not a revenue generating department. That is to say, they are structured to where it doesn't matter. Go on Dice.com and search asp.net developers to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
yelnatz 13y ago
Just in time for IBM to sell off its x86 server lines to Lenovo? http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/ibm-says-goodbye-to-x86-forever-sells-server-lines-to-lenovo/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/ibm-sa...
- Spooky23 13y ago
  IBM was struggling for traction anyway. The people who drink the IBM kool aid buy the power stuff, and the garbage BladeCenter hardware soured the Pure stuff. In competitive procurements, IBM was buying business, taking massive losses to get some hardware installed.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    X86 has been a low-margin business for quite some time now and the odds of that improving are around zero.
brandonbloom 13y ago
One key motivation is likely Google. Data centers represent one of Google's largest competitive advantages. Commoditization of your competitors' products and infrastructure is just good business: It's a strategy that works and usually benefits both consumers and upstart businesses.
- magic_haze 13y ago
  Google doesn't offer its computing as a product (well, yes, there's App Engine, but it's pretty tiny). Amazon, OTOH, has a huge, dominant, and very profitable service dedicated for just these sort of things, and it would be good if it got some competition.
  - robryk 13y ago
    There's Google Compute Engine, too.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Google doesn't offer its computing as a product (well, yes, there's App Engine, but it's pretty tiny). Well, if you ignore not only App Engine (their PaaS offering), but also the rest of the Google Cloud Platform products -- https://cloud.google.com/products/ https://cloud.google.com/products/ -- sure, I guess you could say that. But, really, you are completely wrong. Google clearly does offer its computing as a product.
  - skj 13y ago
    This is just not true. Compute Engine is out there, making money.
magicalist 13y ago
Wait, can you explain what you mean? From my reading (especially from the source blog post[1]), they're releasing server designs and open sourcing some management software. If you were going to be running Windows Server (or someone convinces you to run it), cheaper commodity hardware is great, but it seems like you'll still be paying for Windows Server licenses. [1] http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2014/01/27/microsoft-contributes-cloud-server-designs-to-the-open-compute-project.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2014/01/27...
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Maybe MS is trying to make it easy for other people to run private Azure clouds? Even if they have to buy the software from MS? I mean, these cloud infrastructure services have terrible lock-in concerns, so MS saying "you can buy Azure-ish machines with all our software on them from companies X,Y,Z so if you get pissed off at us you can migrate away from Azure painlessly". That would help adoption of the Azure system for them, and MS gets money either way - service fees on Azure or licenses for the Azure platform software being run on the servers sold by the 3rd-party.
nivla 13y ago
Sorry but what? If you read the article, its about open sourcing their rack and server designs. You know like Facebook did when they built their own datacenter? (and no they din't do it from the threat of Google+'s popularity.) I think these documentations will be very helpful for startups and companies moving away from the cloud to building their own datacenters. I remember Blackblaze open sourcing something similar, their pod designs, which were not only immensely helpful for other startups and companies but also for individuals building home server racks.
- alrs 13y ago
  Yes. Giving away designs for x86 racks and servers hurts Dell, HP, and IBM.
nl 13y ago
Commoditize your complement[1]. Business strategy 101. Not that x86 servers aren't already pretty much commoditized anyway. People pay for the support and for incremental features like who has the most free disk bays or does the best deals on SSD storage. Open Compute won't change that in anyway. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago
That's idiotic.

by alrs 13y ago

wmf 13y ago

It's just to save money. Microsoft has been designing their own servers for years and Open Compute designs have also been available for a while, so any damage to the server vendors is well underway. ODM server sales increased 45% last year (granted, from a small base).

Spooky23 13y ago

Windows Server isn't like the PC OS, it's mostly sold via Select and Enterprise agreements. Microsoft's pricing model is ingenious -- pay a couple of thousand bucks per socket for the OS + half that for the entire system center suite. HyperV in 2012R2 is pretty sweet... it will become increasingly difficult to justify additional investments in the VMWare stack.

couradical 13y ago
This is really something I think people overlook. For a 2 socket server, the total cost for as many VMs as you want is under 8K in licensing for OS, Virtualization platforms, management tools, with little to no limitation. I run a Hyper-V shop now, and I don't know that I would look back until I hit the performance limitations of Hyper-V. It doesn't make sense, especially if you're running Windows OSes on the HW.
- ericd 13y ago
  Xen+Xen-tools with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, unlimited VMs, 2 sockets per server: $0 per server, baby. Edit: Downvotes? I'm sharing my server setup, which is simple to set up (in conjunction with Puppet), works wonderfully, doesn't involve any bullshit RAM or core/socket limits, and doesn't cost you as much as the hardware in software licensing costs. Sorry if it was a bit flippant, but I think a better approach would be to point out the advantages that these extremely expensive bits of software bring over the free open source software that many of them are ultimately based on.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    For Unix workloads, sure, although I'd probably go the RHEL/KVM route. For windows workloads, I'm already buying HyperV, because it's part of windows. So why wouldn't I use it?
    - ericd 13y ago
      To be honest, I don't understand why anyone uses Windows as a server OS, except for things like Exchange servers. I'd probably not use HyperV because I'd only be running Windows in a container on a Xen machine with primarily linux VMs. Any particular reason for choosing RHEL? apt-get is so much better than yum in my experience, and if you go with the support contract, you're adding $1,000-$4,500 to the cost of the server over 3 years. That's a pretty substantial bump that I'd rather spend on more RAM...
      - shiftpgdn 13y ago
        There is a whole world of energy (Oil) companies, hospitals and finance where $4,500 is a rounding error in IT infrastructure costs. You pay for the support contracts and licenses because A. It's what everyone else uses. B. So when something breaks you can point a finger at the vendor and say "We're waiting on them." It's more about being able to CYA and defer liability than anything.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        Using what everyone else uses and covering one's ass is a sure way to prevent your IT from generating any competitive advantages.
        shiftpgdn 13y ago
        At these companies IT is a cost center, not a revenue generating department. That is to say, they are structured to where it doesn't matter. Go on Dice.com and search asp.net developers to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

yelnatz 13y ago

Just in time for IBM to sell off its x86 server lines to Lenovo? http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/ibm-says-goodbye-to-x86-forever-sells-server-lines-to-lenovo/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/ibm-sa...

Spooky23 13y ago
IBM was struggling for traction anyway. The people who drink the IBM kool aid buy the power stuff, and the garbage BladeCenter hardware soured the Pure stuff. In competitive procurements, IBM was buying business, taking massive losses to get some hardware installed.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  X86 has been a low-margin business for quite some time now and the odds of that improving are around zero.

brandonbloom 13y ago

One key motivation is likely Google. Data centers represent one of Google's largest competitive advantages. Commoditization of your competitors' products and infrastructure is just good business: It's a strategy that works and usually benefits both consumers and upstart businesses.

magic_haze 13y ago
Google doesn't offer its computing as a product (well, yes, there's App Engine, but it's pretty tiny). Amazon, OTOH, has a huge, dominant, and very profitable service dedicated for just these sort of things, and it would be good if it got some competition.
- robryk 13y ago
  There's Google Compute Engine, too.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Google doesn't offer its computing as a product (well, yes, there's App Engine, but it's pretty tiny). Well, if you ignore not only App Engine (their PaaS offering), but also the rest of the Google Cloud Platform products -- https://cloud.google.com/products/ https://cloud.google.com/products/ -- sure, I guess you could say that. But, really, you are completely wrong. Google clearly does offer its computing as a product.
- skj 13y ago
  This is just not true. Compute Engine is out there, making money.

magicalist 13y ago

Wait, can you explain what you mean? From my reading (especially from the source blog post[1]), they're releasing server designs and open sourcing some management software. If you were going to be running Windows Server (or someone convinces you to run it), cheaper commodity hardware is great, but it seems like you'll still be paying for Windows Server licenses. [1] http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2014/01/27/microsoft-contributes-cloud-server-designs-to-the-open-compute-project.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2014/01/27...

Pxtl 13y ago
Maybe MS is trying to make it easy for other people to run private Azure clouds? Even if they have to buy the software from MS? I mean, these cloud infrastructure services have terrible lock-in concerns, so MS saying "you can buy Azure-ish machines with all our software on them from companies X,Y,Z so if you get pissed off at us you can migrate away from Azure painlessly". That would help adoption of the Azure system for them, and MS gets money either way - service fees on Azure or licenses for the Azure platform software being run on the servers sold by the 3rd-party.

nivla 13y ago

Sorry but what? If you read the article, its about open sourcing their rack and server designs. You know like Facebook did when they built their own datacenter? (and no they din't do it from the threat of Google+'s popularity.) I think these documentations will be very helpful for startups and companies moving away from the cloud to building their own datacenters. I remember Blackblaze open sourcing something similar, their pod designs, which were not only immensely helpful for other startups and companies but also for individuals building home server racks.

alrs 13y ago
Yes. Giving away designs for x86 racks and servers hurts Dell, HP, and IBM.

nl 13y ago

Commoditize your complement[1]. Business strategy 101. Not that x86 servers aren't already pretty much commoditized anyway. People pay for the support and for incremental features like who has the most free disk bays or does the best deals on SSD storage. Open Compute won't change that in anyway. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago

That's idiotic.