{"id":38,"date":"2007-04-04T18:09:27","date_gmt":"2007-04-04T23:09:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.networkjack.info\/blog\/2007\/04\/04\/intel-macmini-blade-server-followup\/"},"modified":"2008-12-21T13:07:27","modified_gmt":"2008-12-21T18:07:27","slug":"intel-macmini-blade-server-followup","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.networkjack.info\/blog\/2007\/04\/04\/intel-macmini-blade-server-followup\/","title":{"rendered":"Intel MacMini Blade Server Followup"},"content":{"rendered":"

A followup to my article<\/a> that generated a lot of traffic and comment.<\/p>\n

Point of clarification: the Minis in this system are only doing one thing: executing PHP.<\/p>\n

They don’t serve up image files or store anything persistent on disk. They all communicate to a central database system that has proper redundancy built in.<\/p>\n

Since the Minis in this application don’t use any local disk resources other than to store PHP code, if a Mini were to fail or fall out of the set for some reason, the system as a whole still runs. The redundancy you would normally have built into a bigger beefier server (and pay extra for) is handled by just having more servers. Google does the same thing. When a server in their system dies they really don’t care too much because they built their redundancy in through sheer numbers. For the price of 2 well outfitted Intel Xserves, I can purchase 12 MacMinis and use less power (~ 4.2A) and 2-3 times more processing power and have a LOT more redundancy.<\/p>\n

Based on the wording of articles<\/a> linking<\/a> to my post (and perhaps my own wild performance claims), there seemed to be an inordinate amount of chatter<\/a> focusing on how the MacMini was faster<\/em> than the Xserve G5 in cpu performance, when that wasn’t the primary concept I wanted to convey about why the Mini’s are a good fit for a front end web farm. (Perhaps better writing skills would help)<\/p>\n

My main thrust was that the balance<\/strong> between price, performance, power consumption, heat generation and reliability (Apple has on average produced better and longer lasting hardware) of the MacMini was hard to match.<\/p>\n

When compared against traditional blade systems like what is offered by IBM, Dell, HP, etc.., it’s obvious one loses certain features. Primarily these are centralized management tools, unified chassis for power and network cabling amongst others. However those hardware systems cost<\/strong> more overall<\/p>\n

In deploying networked systems, really in life, one must balance certain choices.<\/p>\n

For this application for this client, the MacMini has the right balance in all those critical areas.<\/p>\n

\n

Some example hardware configs I threw together for comparison of performance, cost, power:<\/p>\n

\"Dell\"Dual\"Intel\"MacMini<\/p>\n

For comparison sake, I’m going to use the Mini’s 1.66 Ghz Core Duo cpu as a base unit. One Mini has 2 each of the “core-unit”. Also, I tried to maintain a 1GB of RAM per core.<\/p>\n

I’m going to make up another value: Power Ratio. This is Amps per core-unit.<\/em> For example: a MacMini has a Power Ratio of 0.15<\/p>\n

So, assuming a minimum of two systems for redundancy:<\/p>\n