Ooo, check this out:

http://tinyurl.com/67c4p8

Intel Pentium II? IBM harddisks? And a wiring job that looks like 
something I'd have in my bedroom? Heh. How far they have come...

Post a reply to this message

Le 05/03/2012 12:26, Invisible a écrit :
> Ooo, check this out:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/67c4p8
> 
> Intel Pentium II? IBM harddisks? And a wiring job that looks like
> something I'd have in my bedroom? Heh. How far they have come...


Cases are for <insert typical minority group here>, look at the
motherboards bending under the weight of the pair of hard disks.

No cases, flying motherboards everywhere, running threads and flying
nude switches and yet enough money to get a HP networking rack on top.
One hand looks very professional and clean solution, the other hand is
so DIY.

I guess it's like putting a home-made top case on a racing car, F1
style. With fancy stickers of flower on it.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/03/2012 11:56 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> No cases, flying motherboards everywhere, running threads and flying
> nude switches and yet enough money to get a HP networking rack on top.

Uh, yeah. Last time I checked, HP equipment isn't cheap...

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012/03/05 06:56, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Le 05/03/2012 12:26, Invisible a écrit :
>> Ooo, check this out:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/67c4p8
>>
>> Intel Pentium II? IBM harddisks? And a wiring job that looks like
>> something I'd have in my bedroom? Heh. How far they have come...
>
>
> Cases are for<insert typical minority group here>, look at the
> motherboards bending under the weight of the pair of hard disks.
>
> No cases, flying motherboards everywhere, running threads and flying
> nude switches and yet enough money to get a HP networking rack on top.
> One hand looks very professional and clean solution, the other hand is
> so DIY.
>
> I guess it's like putting a home-made top case on a racing car, F1
> style. With fancy stickers of flower on it.

Who said only pairs of HDs? For all we know, and see, there could be 4 
of them on each motherboards...

I agree, rack mounting normal motherboards is not the brightest idea.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/03/2012 18:47, Alain wrote:
> I agree, rack mounting normal motherboards is not the brightest idea.

OTOH, it seems that any equipment that says "rack mountable" on it is 
instantly 5x the price, for no apparent reason...

Post a reply to this message

Le 05/03/2012 19:47, Alain nous fit lire :
> 
> Who said only pairs of HDs? For all we know, and see, there could be 4
> of them on each motherboards...
> 
> I agree, rack mounting normal motherboards is not the brightest idea.

Pay attention to the image. There is 2 motherboards per layer (visible,
back to back), each with its Pentium II, and a PCI Ethernet card (1
slot). Above the motherboards, there is 2 disks, one for each motherboard.

Now, given the number of switchs & leds, I wonder if there is not a
deeper set of motherboards (for a total of 4 or 5 per layer), or that
just some small powerunits.

There is only 2 memory slots filled out of the 3 available. The hard
disks are on the mezzanine on top of them. (well, it's a bit of
wood/cardboard

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-03-05 14:42, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 05/03/2012 18:47, Alain wrote:
>> I agree, rack mounting normal motherboards is not the brightest idea.
>
> OTOH, it seems that any equipment that says "rack mountable" on it is
> instantly 5x the price, for no apparent reason...

Of course, the engineering that goes in designing the special connectors 
to power and manage these boards, as well as keep them ventilated comes 
free of charge, in your world...

-- 
/*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

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:54:03 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2012-03-05 14:42, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> On 05/03/2012 18:47, Alain wrote:
>>> I agree, rack mounting normal motherboards is not the brightest idea.
>>
>> OTOH, it seems that any equipment that says "rack mountable" on it is
>> instantly 5x the price, for no apparent reason...
> 
> Of course, the engineering that goes in designing the special connectors
> to power and manage these boards, as well as keep them ventilated comes
> free of charge, in your world...

Along with hot-pluggable redundancy in power supplies and in some cases 
even the controllers plugged into the system (hot-plug PCI anyone?).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/5/2012 3:26, Invisible wrote:
> Ooo, check this out:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/67c4p8

"Imagine a college freshman made out of gigabytes. This would be his dorm room."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

>> OTOH, it seems that any equipment that says "rack mountable" on it is
>> instantly 5x the price, for no apparent reason...
>
> Of course, the engineering that goes in designing the special connectors
> to power and manage these boards, as well as keep them ventilated comes
> free of charge, in your world...

What "special connectors"?

Buy a UPS that sits under your desk. That's £50. Buy a UPS that is rack 
mountable. That's £800, minimum. Sure, they probably don't sell rack UPS 
with capacities as low as they do for the desktop. But 16x the price? 
Really? For a battery and an inverter?

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?

(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.)

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. 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...

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-03-06 04:11, Invisible a écrit :
>>> OTOH, it seems that any equipment that says "rack mountable" on it is
>>> instantly 5x the price, for no apparent reason...
>>
>> Of course, the engineering that goes in designing the special connectors
>> to power and manage these boards, as well as keep them ventilated comes
>> free of charge, in your world...
>
> What "special connectors"?

I was talking more about "blade servers", since the original topic was 
the Google servers, where each blade gets its power, remote management 
and network connections from a central backplane.

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.

>
> Buy a UPS that sits under your desk. That's £50. Buy a UPS that is rack
> mountable. That's £800, minimum. Sure, they probably don't sell rack UPS
> with capacities as low as they do for the desktop. But 16x the price?
> Really? For a battery and an inverter?

It depends on the battery.  And besides, you are comparing apples and 
bulldozers.

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

http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BE750G&total_watts=200

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.

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

>
> (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?

>
> 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?

> 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.

-- 
/*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

>> 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.

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.

> 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.

>> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

>> (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.

>> 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.)

>> 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...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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...

You do know that a network card for a printer is actually a print server, right?

Regards
Aydan

Post a reply to this message

On 06/03/2012 04:40 PM, Aydan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> 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...
>
> You do know that a network card for a printer is actually a print server, right?

You do know that a laser printer already has an entire computing 
environment inside it running an embedded PostScript engine, right?

Adding an embedded TCP/IP stack can't be /that/ damned hard.

Also, explain this:
   Replacement network card for our printer £250.
   Replacement printer: £200.

How can the entire printer be /cheaper/ than just the network card?! 
That makes no logical sense!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 04:40 PM, Aydan wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> 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...
> >
> > You do know that a network card for a printer is actually a print server, right?
>
> You do know that a laser printer already has an entire computing
> environment inside it running an embedded PostScript engine, right?

You were talking about a 30GBP printer.
You don't get a laser printer for 30 pounds.
Even if you do it's unlikely that the printer supports PostScript.
The cheapest postscript capable printer I could find on short notice is a
Lexmark E260 for 169 Euros.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012/03/05 19:54, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2012-03-05 14:42, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> On 05/03/2012 18:47, Alain wrote:
>>> I agree, rack mounting normal motherboards is not the brightest idea.
>>
>> OTOH, it seems that any equipment that says "rack mountable" on it is
>> instantly 5x the price, for no apparent reason...
>
> Of course, the engineering that goes in designing the special connectors
> to power and manage these boards, as well as keep them ventilated comes
> free of charge, in your world...
>

Also, don't forget that most rack mountable components are hot swapable. 
That account for some price increase.
Want to change that board holding those 4 old single core CPUs with one 
holding 6 8 cores CPUs of the last generation? Disable the board, pull 
it out, push in the new one, fire it and you are good to go.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:38:27 -0500, Alain wrote:

> Le 2012/03/05 19:54, Francois Labreque a écrit :
>> Le 2012-03-05 14:42, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> On 05/03/2012 18:47, Alain wrote:
>>>> I agree, rack mounting normal motherboards is not the brightest idea.
>>>
>>> OTOH, it seems that any equipment that says "rack mountable" on it is
>>> instantly 5x the price, for no apparent reason...
>>
>> Of course, the engineering that goes in designing the special
>> connectors to power and manage these boards, as well as keep them
>> ventilated comes free of charge, in your world...
>>
>>
> Also, don't forget that most rack mountable components are hot swapable.
> That account for some price increase.
> Want to change that board holding those 4 old single core CPUs with one
> holding 6 8 cores CPUs of the last generation? Disable the board, pull
> it out, push in the new one, fire it and you are good to go.

Most server-class hardware also comes with a support contract with fast 
turnaround.  Service is like insurance - expensive, and you hope you 
never need to use it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Most server-class hardware also comes with a support contract with fast
> turnaround.

Yes, but you can perfectly well get tower servers with that too. So 
comparing that to a rack-mount server would seem to nullify this point.

> Service is like insurance - expensive, and you hope you
> never need to use it.

Yep - usually because when you /do/ need it, you find out it isn't very 
good. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:10:22 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Most server-class hardware also comes with a support contract with fast
>> turnaround.
> 
> Yes, but you can perfectly well get tower servers with that too. So
> comparing that to a rack-mount server would seem to nullify this point.

I've never seen a tower server with hot-pluggable power supplies or hot-
pluggable PCI.  (Doesn't mean they don't exist, but I've yet to see one).

>> Service is like insurance - expensive, and you hope you never need to
>> use it.
> 
> Yep - usually because when you /do/ need it, you find out it isn't very
> good. ;-)

That's also usually true. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Most server-class hardware also comes with a support contract with fast
>>> turnaround.
>>
>> Yes, but you can perfectly well get tower servers with that too. So
>> comparing that to a rack-mount server would seem to nullify this point.
>
> I've never seen a tower server with hot-pluggable power supplies or hot-
> pluggable PCI.  (Doesn't mean they don't exist, but I've yet to see one).

Our old server towers had hot-swap PSUs. In fact, one of the tests in 
the disaster recovery plan verification procedure that I wrote was to 
physically unplug one and make sure the server doesn't die. ;-)

No hot-swap PCI though; IIRC, it had ISA, not PCI.

>>> Service is like insurance - expensive, and you hope you never need to
>>> use it.
>>
>> Yep - usually because when you /do/ need it, you find out it isn't very
>> good. ;-)
>
> That's also usually true. :)

Ah, you too have bitter experience, I see. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:46:18 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>>> Most server-class hardware also comes with a support contract with
>>>> fast turnaround.
>>>
>>> Yes, but you can perfectly well get tower servers with that too. So
>>> comparing that to a rack-mount server would seem to nullify this
>>> point.
>>
>> I've never seen a tower server with hot-pluggable power supplies or
>> hot- pluggable PCI.  (Doesn't mean they don't exist, but I've yet to
>> see one).
> 
> Our old server towers had hot-swap PSUs. In fact, one of the tests in
> the disaster recovery plan verification procedure that I wrote was to
> physically unplug one and make sure the server doesn't die. ;-)

I'd buy that.

> No hot-swap PCI though; IIRC, it had ISA, not PCI.

I had some of the first Proliant 6500 servers to come off the assembly 
line - the hot plug PCI was a nice feature, but we never actually needed 
to use it.

>>>> Service is like insurance - expensive, and you hope you never need to
>>>> use it.
>>>
>>> Yep - usually because when you /do/ need it, you find out it isn't
>>> very good. ;-)
>>
>> That's also usually true. :)
> 
> Ah, you too have bitter experience, I see. :-)

Well, right now I don't have health coverage at all because I'm just 
doing contract work.

But yeah, I've had situations where insurance coverage really didn't help 
much.

I've also had experiences where support was less than stellar on hardware 
and/or software. :)

Hard to work in this industry and not have that happen, sadly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> Service is like insurance - expensive, and you hope you never need to
>>>>> use it.
>>>>
>>>> Yep - usually because when you /do/ need it, you find out it isn't
>>>> very good. ;-)
>>>
>>> That's also usually true. :)
>>
>> Ah, you too have bitter experience, I see. :-)
>
> Well, right now I don't have health coverage at all because I'm just
> doing contract work.
>
> But yeah, I've had situations where insurance coverage really didn't help
> much.
>
> I've also had experiences where support was less than stellar on hardware
> and/or software. :)
>
> Hard to work in this industry and not have that happen, sadly.

Forget /this/ industry; just "industry". Tried getting warranty support 
on your car? It doesn't fare much better.

It still amuses me that I just bought a new phone for £80 and they 
offered to charge me £6/week for insurance. Or I could... just buy a new 
phone? For a fraction of the cost? And no danger of the insurance not 
covering it? Gee, let me think about that for a moment... :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:00:38 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>>>>> Service is like insurance - expensive, and you hope you never need
>>>>>> to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep - usually because when you /do/ need it, you find out it isn't
>>>>> very good. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> That's also usually true. :)
>>>
>>> Ah, you too have bitter experience, I see. :-)
>>
>> Well, right now I don't have health coverage at all because I'm just
>> doing contract work.
>>
>> But yeah, I've had situations where insurance coverage really didn't
>> help much.
>>
>> I've also had experiences where support was less than stellar on
>> hardware and/or software. :)
>>
>> Hard to work in this industry and not have that happen, sadly.
> 
> Forget /this/ industry; just "industry". Tried getting warranty support
> on your car? It doesn't fare much better.

I've had good experience with my car - even now that the manufacturer 
(Saturn) has gone belly-up.  Of course, the car is out of warranty now 
(as a '99 model), but when it was under warranty, I never had a problem - 
which is one reason why I bought two cars from them in succession.

The guys who do the work on it now used to run the dealer's service 
center, so I still get the same level of service.  I'm really pleased 
with that. :)

> It still amuses me that I just bought a new phone for £80 and they
> offered to charge me £6/week for insurance. Or I could... just buy a new
> phone? For a fraction of the cost? And no danger of the insurance not
> covering it? Gee, let me think about that for a moment... :-P

Yeah, that kind of 'extended warranty' is nothing but a scam.  I have 
only once bought it, and it was as much a waste of money as I thought it 
would be (I was buying a router to put alternative router firmware on and 
thought I might brick it, so having the warranty seemed like a good 
idea.  It wasn't - the reason I bought the router in question was because 
it was very difficult to brick....)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

>> 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?

No.

Generally manufacturers will make one model that's floor-standing, and 
another, different model which is rack-mount. That makes it quite hard 
to compare the same model in both configurations.

> 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.

And if that were the case, I'd have no complaints. My point is that this 
seems emphatically /not/ to be the case. It seems more like rack 
mounting is a "premium feature", and you have to pay a serious amount of 
money for it.

That said, for a /server/ there is at least some justification; it's not 
easy to fit all that stuff into such a small space. For other devices, 
there's really no way to justify it.

>> 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.

Since when do keyboards have "models"?

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

I'm saying, not knowing how the batteries are different, I can't say 
whether or not that justifies the price difference. It might do, I don't 
know.

>>> 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.

Interesting... I haven't seen too many cheap devices that support this.

>> 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.

I would imagine these switches are long obsolete now. A few Google 
searches turn up results such as

"The EZ Switches 10/100 (SMCFS1601/ SMCFS2401) are unmanaged, 
rack-mountable 16-/24-port Fast Ethernet switches for workgroup and 
small office environment."

which is probably what we had. Good luck figuring out what the original 
sale price was.

>> 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.

No. The rack-mount is higher spec - that the difference is probably 
enough to account for the difference in price.

Which would seem to suggest that the difference is that they don't 
bother offering rack-mount for cheap hardware.

>> 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.

Actually, the printer I'm thinking of prints at a /lower/ resolution 
than most other inkjets. And it only has one tray and no duplex. I will 
grant you, however, that it most certainly /does/ print very, very fast 
for an inkjet.

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.03.2012 10:22, schrieb Invisible:
>>> 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?
>
> No.
>
> Generally manufacturers will make one model that's floor-standing, and
> another, different model which is rack-mount. That makes it quite hard
> to compare the same model in both configurations.
>
>> 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.
>
> And if that were the case, I'd have no complaints. My point is that this
> seems emphatically /not/ to be the case. It seems more like rack
> mounting is a "premium feature", and you have to pay a serious amount of
> money for it.

And guess what - there happens to be a reason for this ;-)

You know, people who rack-mount things usually demand some features 
(besides mounting brackets) the non-rack-mounting people just don't care 
about. So why spend even $0.01 per unit in design and manufactoring 
costs on optional rack-mounting capability for some piece of equipment 
with a margin of less than $10.00 if this increases your sales by less 
than 0.1%?

> I'm saying, not knowing how the batteries are different, I can't say
> whether or not that justifies the price difference. It might do, I don't
> know.

Obviously they're different in how fast you can charge them, no?

> Which would seem to suggest that the difference is that they don't
> bother offering rack-mount for cheap hardware.

Exactly that. The added design and manufacturing costs - however low 
they may be - simply don't pay off.

Post a reply to this message

>> It seems more like rack
>> mounting is a "premium feature", and you have to pay a serious amount of
>> money for it.
>
> And guess what - there happens to be a reason for this ;-)

That's kind of what I'm asking about.

> You know, people who rack-mount things usually demand some features
> (besides mounting brackets) the non-rack-mounting people just don't care
> about.

I fail to see why putting a £2 keyboard with some of its keys missing 
into a slidy draw makes it worth £200, but OK.

>> I'm saying, not knowing how the batteries are different, I can't say
>> whether or not that justifies the price difference. It might do, I don't
>> know.
>
> Obviously they're different in how fast you can charge them, no?

I meant what's physically different about the batteries that makes them 
perform better.

If they work better because the electrodes are made of solid gold, then 
yeah, that'll be why they're more expensive. :-P (Although... damn... 
according to my chemistry, that shouldn't work AT ALL!) If they charge 
faster because the charge management chip is different, then... there's 
really no reason for a price hike.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-03-08 09:01, Invisible a écrit :
>>> It seems more like rack
>>> mounting is a "premium feature", and you have to pay a serious amount of
>>> money for it.
>>
>> And guess what - there happens to be a reason for this ;-)
>
> That's kind of what I'm asking about.
>
>> You know, people who rack-mount things usually demand some features
>> (besides mounting brackets) the non-rack-mounting people just don't care
>> about.
>
> I fail to see why putting a £2 keyboard with some of its keys missing
> into a slidy draw makes it worth £200, but OK.
>
>>> I'm saying, not knowing how the batteries are different, I can't say
>>> whether or not that justifies the price difference. It might do, I don't
>>> know.
>>
>> Obviously they're different in how fast you can charge them, no?
>
> I meant what's physically different about the batteries that makes them
> perform better.
>
> If they work better because the electrodes are made of solid gold, then
> yeah, that'll be why they're more expensive. :-P (Although... damn...
> according to my chemistry, that shouldn't work AT ALL!) If they charge
> faster because the charge management chip is different, then... there's
> really no reason for a price hike.

If only there was a way to get that information from the website I 
linked in the previous post...

Replacement battery pack for the home unit:
http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=RBC17

Replacement battery pack for the rackmountable unit:
http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=RBC34L

The RBC34L is about 3 times as heavy than the RBC17 that should be your 
first clue...  3 times the number of batteries = 3 times the price, no?

Secondly, the RBC34L is hot-swappable, that means additional circuitry, 
and design that could very well account for the rest of the price 
difference.

You also need to understand that they probably sell fewer rackmountable 
units than they sell home units, therefore the production fixed costs 
have to be recouped on a smaller number of units sold, also contributing 
to higher prices.

It's possible that APC is screwing their corporate customers, but there 
are quite a few perfectly valid reasons besides price-gouging to justify 
the higher prices.

-- 
/*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