My ramblings on the stuff that holds it all together
Category Archives: IBM
There is a detailed post here from IT2.0 on the IBM BladeCenter S, it shows how the chassis itself can contain disks and RAID’ed SAS controllers and works with vMotion/HA etc. and could potentially run up to 100 VM’s within 7U (no mention of power – which is more interesting to me).
If I read it correctly, that means you can integrate your blade servers and storage fabric within the same modular IBM chassis and it doesn’t require any external SAN storage or the use of one or more traditional server blades to “head-end” the storage (via iSCSI/NFS).
The pitch is around the SMB market, but I can see a wider application; if you are building internal cloud type infrastructures you might not get the budget to implement enterprise-type storage from day 1 as it requires a large up-front capital expenditure in FC/iSCSI switches, high performance disk arrays etc. particularly if you need something that will scale vertically to the large capacities or bandwidth that large VM estates require.
This type of approach could be ideal for horizontal scaling in reasonably priced “chunks” of capacity. If IBM (or a 3rd party vendor) were to introduce a storage replication bridge between the storage in two or more of these units then you could well be into a modular architecture for virtualization that would scale out to google-esque levels of world-domination in small, bite-sized chunks.
So far I’ve not seen anything similar from HP for the c-class blades – just storage blades that map 1:1 to an individual server blade via the PCI backplane.
Interesting article here on some stress testing VMWare have done running Exchange 2007 under virtualization on VI3.5.
It’s working.. .and working well, now – official support?
I’ve worked with HP c-class stuff recently, but this is a good article on the IBM equivalent and the post looks a lot simpler to read than all the official IBM docs!
In my book if you are virtualizing your infrastructure there is less of a religious argument on the underlying hardware – it’s a lot more flexible so do you care as much?
Thanks to Martins post on Bladewatch for the handy link