Le 2012-03-06 10:23, Invisible a écrit :
>>> What "special connectors"?
>>
>> I was talking more about "blade servers"
>
> Oh, right.
>
> Yes, those really /are/ expensive. If nothing else, each manufacturer's
> blades only fit in their own blade centre. So once you have their blade
> centre, they are the only people who can sell you blades. So they can
> charge any arbitrary price they want.
>
>> but even if we are talking about a "desktop" PC case vs. a
>> rack-mountable server with a similar CPU. The rackmountable server will
>> have a lot more consideration put into its ventilation and heat
>> disspation since it is made to be in a closed space full of other
>> heat-generating devices. Secondly, rack-mounted servers usually come
>> with a lot of extra feautres not usually found on classical desktop
>> hardware, such as hot-swappable disks, power supplies, and in some
>> cases, memory and CPUs.
>>
>> You need to realise that these things also contribute to the price of a
>> rack-mountable server.
>
> When I joined the company, we had floor-standing servers with hot-swap
> drives, dual redundant power supplies, a floor-standing UPS, and all the
> rest. It still didn't cost anywhere near what a rack-mountable setup
> would cost.

Of the same brand and model?  Last time I looked at server costs (over 
10 years ago), the price difference between a Compaq Proliant 2500 with 
feet and a compaq Proliant with mounting brackets was the price of the 
mounting brackets.

>
> My original point was, /anything/ sold as rack mountable seems to
> suddenly jump drastically in price, regardless of whether it's anything
> special beyond having the necessary mounting points.
>
> Heck, a USB keyboard costs, what, £2 maybe? Oh, but if you want a
> keyboard draw for a rack? Suddenly it isn't £2 any more. More like £200.
> Sure, the draw runners clearly cost money. Do they cost £198? I don't
> think so.

Are.
They.
The.
Same.
Brand.
And.
Model?

If not, your comparison is useless.

>
>> Maybe besides size there are other factors to consider... Let's compare
>> a "home" unit, vs. a rackmountable unit of the same power rating and
>> same supplier.
>>
>> "Home" UPS
>>
>> Output capacity: 450W/750VA.
>> Run time @400W: 3 min.
>> Run time @100W: 40 min.
>> Recharge time: 16 hrs.
>> Alarms: power/on battery/replace battery led display.
>> Management: N/A
>> Price: ~100$
>>
>> "Rackmountable" UPS
>>
>> Output capacity: 480W/750VA.
>> Run time @400W: 8 min.
>> Run time @100W: 50 min.
>> Recharge time: 4 hrs.
>> Alarms: Audible alarms when on battery/low battery/Replace battery
>> Management: vis DB-9, RS-232, SmartSlot or USB. Network management card
>> optional.
>> Price: ~500$
>>
>> So the rackmountable unit recharges 4x faster and has much better
>> management capabilities - I mean what good does a LED display do you in
>> an unattended server room? - for 5x the price. Seems reasonable to me.
>>
>> The "entry-level" rackmountable unit has a lot more to offer than the
>> "top-of-the-line" standalone unit, besides mounting brackets.
>
> I don't see why management facilities should cost 5x extra. If somebody
> can make something as complex as a mobile phone and sell it for £10,
> building something which closes a connection when a voltage goes below a
> threshold can't be that damned expensive.
>
> I don't know why there's such a massive difference in recharge time.
> Since I don't know what's different about the second unit which allows
> it to recharge so much faster, I can't say whether or not that justifies
> the price difference.
>

Are you being willfully dense?  You don't understand why two different 
types of batteries might be responsible for the price difference?

>>> Buy a 12-port desktop switch. £30, maybe? Now buy a rack mountable one.
>>> That'll be £200 please. Sure, it's physically bigger. There's more metal
>>> in it. Metal costs money. But does it cost /that/ much money?
>>
>> What's the MTBF of your 30$ desktop switch?
>
> Isn't MTBF an arbitrarily-chosen marketing number?
>

No.

>> Does it have remote management capabilities?
>
> Unlikely. (Although not impossible, believe it or not.) But then, for
> £200 your rack mount unit probably won't either.
>

Why not?  My $99 dollar Linksys router has remote management.

>> What about problem diagnostics? How many
>> packets per second can it process? Does it support vlans? QoS? PPPoE?
>> 802.1x authentication? Etc...
>
> Same statements as per management.
>

Same answer as above.

>>> (Before anyone asks - no, just because it can be rack mounted, that does
>>> /not/ mean it has management features. When I joined the company, we had
>>> a whole rack full of switches, all rack mounted, none of them managed.
>>> And all about £400 each.)
>>
>> Not manageABLE or simply not managed? Also [citation needed] brand and
>> model?
>
> No management features. You just plug them in, turn them on, and they
> work. (Once they finished learning MAC addresses, anyway...)
>
> I don't recall the exact model off the top of my head. They were
> definitely SMC "EZ switch", but I can't remember the precise model
> numbers. A mixture of 12-port and 24-port units.
>

They are probably not the exact same model as what you had, but the 
SMC8505T is currently listed both on the standalone and the 
rack-mountable sections of the SMC website.  Unless it's an error, I 
suspect the price will be very similar...

On the other hand, the "smallest" SMC switch that actually looks like a 
rackmountable is the SMCGS16, whic DOES have a lot of extra features 
besides drill holes for mounting brackets.

>>> Redundant power supplies cost extra. RAID controllers cost extra.
>>> Hot-swap drive bays cost extra. And yet, a server that has these costs
>>> nowhere near as much as a rack-mount server.
>>
>> [citation needed] Brand and model?
>
> A cursory inspection of the nearest product catalogue indicates that the
> starting price for a HP server is about £200, while the cheapest
> possible rack-mountable unit is £400. Which, actually, isn't nearly as
> bad as I'd expected. (I was thinking nearer £2,000. It /is/ HP, after all.)
>

Is the £200 server THE SAME as the £400 one, apart from the mounting 
brackets?  If not, your comparison is flawed.

>>> Now sure, making something
>>> like a server actually small enough to be rack mounted is nontrivial.
>>> There's a reason laptops cost 5x the price of a similar desktop. I
>>> understand that. But for goodness' sake, if you make a /wire clamp/
>>> that's rack mountable, suddenly it goes from being £2 to £80. It's like
>>> it's a license to print money...
>>
>> Then make one and sell it for only £50 and drive the £80-clamp guy out
>> of business, if it's that easy.
>
> It just seems that being rack-mountable is one of those "premium"
> features that makes manufacturers instantly put the price up, just
> because they can.
>
> It's like printers with network cards. A network card costs, what,
> £0.0016? And yet, a printer without one is £30 or something, but one
> with it is £150. Presumably because they figure that your average home
> user doesn't give a fig whether there's a network card, they just want
> the cheapest one in the shop, but your average business user cannot
> afford to do without one, and won't think twice about splashing a few
> hundred pounds for something they actually need...

It couldn't possibly because the USB printer at £30 prints only 6 pages 
per minute at 300dpi, while the networkable printer does twice as much 
at twice the resolution, has two paper trays and does automatic 
two-sided printing, can it?  No... It HAS to be because of the built-in nic.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message