5 ms·

Well, they're fitting 4 sockets and 8 GPUS in the space that's normally used by 4 sockets only. Also, if you're trying to sync raw images between OS X clients

Well, they're fitting 4 sockets and 8 GPUS in the space that's normally used by 4 sockets only. Also, if you're trying to sync raw images between OS X clients and the cloud, then you're going to need OS X servers in the cloud. It'll greatly complicate the clients workflow if they can't use their built in raw converters.

exelius 12y ago
Right; which is why I was surprised that OS X stacks up as favorably as it does. But I wouldn't call it a great value since it's still much more expensive than a traditional rack mount setup. From a density perspective it's really not bad at all, which is a testament to how well-engineered the Mac Pro is.
- mozumder 12y ago
  I'd say it's not even as expensive as something like IBM's 4-socket rack servers like the x3850 X6.
  - exelius 12y ago
    Yeah, except IBM's x86 hardware has always been stupid expensive for no good reason other than it's IBM. And didn't they spin off their xSeries server business to Lenovo once the market settled on HP systems that cost half what IBM's did?
    - mozumder 12y ago
      Even an HP 4 socket system like the DL980 G7 is going to be as expensive. None of these servers are going to be cheap.
      - rconti 12y ago
        Also the DL980 G7 is an unholy piece of crap. HP doesn't know how to build or fix them. I've gone through countless service requests on just a dozen machines or thereabouts. It's the worst piece of any kind of hardware I've ever used, hands down.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - skuhn 12y ago
    In fairness, 4 socket servers are pretty serious money. Just the difference in cost for 4 socket capable Xeons alone puts them out of reach for many use cases. E5-2658 v2 (dual cpu): $1440 per part E5-4650 v2 (quad cpu): $3616 per part As a result, I stick to 2 socket servers for Linux machines. I think the scaling out paradigm just works out a lot better, particularly for Internet services.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Sanddancer 12y ago
At the scale imgix is going for, and given they're already doing a lot of custom architecture work, something like Supermicro's GPGPU chassis [1] would allow the same server density, plus use GPUs and CPUs that are 1-2 generations ahead of Apple's offerings. Regarding raw images, you don't need OS X servers to do that, just programs that can read the raw formats. That could be a windows box, or an OpenCL-enabled program like darktable [2]. Really the biggest issue here is engineering time for porting the app, and given the costs of the hardware they're using, I'd take a good hard look at how long it would take to port the software; I'd bet that they'd save money after deploying a few boxes. [1] http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/2u/2028/SYS-2028GR-TRT.cfm http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/2u/2028/SYS-2028GR... [2] https://www.darktable.org/ https://www.darktable.org/
- mozumder 12y ago
  Every raw image processor is different. You could use a different raw processor (which would complicate a client workflow), but the results would look different from the native OS X client raw image processor. If you want a solution that exactly matches OS X client, you need OS X.
- skuhn 12y ago
  (I'm the datacenter manager at imgix, and I wrote this article) I mentioned this elsewhere, but considering alternative solutions was definitely a part of this project. Supermicro's GPGPU chassis was one of them, as well as some of the 2U FatTwin options (which we use for all of our other system types). While it would probably have long term cost savings, it definitely isn't something that we could realize within deploying just a few systems. It would be a pretty time and labor intensive process on the software side, in order to save labor on the operations side that isn't particularly problematic for us. So, maybe in another few generations of our image renderers this will make sense, but it doesn't today.

exelius 12y ago

Right; which is why I was surprised that OS X stacks up as favorably as it does. But I wouldn't call it a great value since it's still much more expensive than a traditional rack mount setup. From a density perspective it's really not bad at all, which is a testament to how well-engineered the Mac Pro is.

mozumder 12y ago
I'd say it's not even as expensive as something like IBM's 4-socket rack servers like the x3850 X6.
- exelius 12y ago
  Yeah, except IBM's x86 hardware has always been stupid expensive for no good reason other than it's IBM. And didn't they spin off their xSeries server business to Lenovo once the market settled on HP systems that cost half what IBM's did?
  - mozumder 12y ago
    Even an HP 4 socket system like the DL980 G7 is going to be as expensive. None of these servers are going to be cheap.
    - rconti 12y ago
      Also the DL980 G7 is an unholy piece of crap. HP doesn't know how to build or fix them. I've gone through countless service requests on just a dozen machines or thereabouts. It's the worst piece of any kind of hardware I've ever used, hands down.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- skuhn 12y ago
  In fairness, 4 socket servers are pretty serious money. Just the difference in cost for 4 socket capable Xeons alone puts them out of reach for many use cases. E5-2658 v2 (dual cpu): $1440 per part E5-4650 v2 (quad cpu): $3616 per part As a result, I stick to 2 socket servers for Linux machines. I think the scaling out paradigm just works out a lot better, particularly for Internet services.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Sanddancer 12y ago

At the scale imgix is going for, and given they're already doing a lot of custom architecture work, something like Supermicro's GPGPU chassis [1] would allow the same server density, plus use GPUs and CPUs that are 1-2 generations ahead of Apple's offerings. Regarding raw images, you don't need OS X servers to do that, just programs that can read the raw formats. That could be a windows box, or an OpenCL-enabled program like darktable [2]. Really the biggest issue here is engineering time for porting the app, and given the costs of the hardware they're using, I'd take a good hard look at how long it would take to port the software; I'd bet that they'd save money after deploying a few boxes. [1] http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/2u/2028/SYS-2028GR-TRT.cfm http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/2u/2028/SYS-2028GR... [2] https://www.darktable.org/ https://www.darktable.org/

mozumder 12y ago
Every raw image processor is different. You could use a different raw processor (which would complicate a client workflow), but the results would look different from the native OS X client raw image processor. If you want a solution that exactly matches OS X client, you need OS X.
skuhn 12y ago
(I'm the datacenter manager at imgix, and I wrote this article) I mentioned this elsewhere, but considering alternative solutions was definitely a part of this project. Supermicro's GPGPU chassis was one of them, as well as some of the 2U FatTwin options (which we use for all of our other system types). While it would probably have long term cost savings, it definitely isn't something that we could realize within deploying just a few systems. It would be a pretty time and labor intensive process on the software side, in order to save labor on the operations side that isn't particularly problematic for us. So, maybe in another few generations of our image renderers this will make sense, but it doesn't today.