Moderator: Peter Burris
Analyst: David Floyer
Over the past few years, the remaining very large hardware vendors (e.g. Dell, HP, IBM, Sun) have focused much of their invention on blade computing; the packaging of CPU, memory, network and I/O capabilities utilizing a common set of technologies that can be easily added to or removed from a shared frame with common support and environmental resources, all under the control of a single set of management and console resources. While all these vendors are utilizing the same nomenclature and similar concepts, the reality is that blade products are still distinct enough that mixing and matching is not advisable. This places some users in a quandary regarding their use of blade technology.
Specifically, as each vendor attempts to position its blade products not only as superior to other vendor products but also positioning blade computing as superior to other types of computing, enormous promises are being made regarding the degree to which complex hardware configuration and operations work will go away as a consequence of using blade computing.
The reality is that for applications at the margin such as very large transaction processing applications or other applications with very high write to read ratios, etc, configuring applications to work on specially configured hardware will remain a challenging and complex undertaking. However for the broad array of applications such as email, Web serving and even many analytics applications, blade computing can offer the benefits of simpler configuration, change and operations from a hardware perspective.
Users must recognize though that they will pay a premium for lower volume blade complexes to cover the true costs of large blade racks and packaging technologies as well as vendor markups for their specific solutions. Therefore, small and medium-sized businesses should be very careful to assess the marginal benefits versus the marginal costs of using blade technology. Typically, we found that application loads that require fewer than 5-10 blades (15-20 CPUs) are often best devoted to traditional standalone server technologies under a single console. Over time, we expect to see a convergence of blade standards as competition in that marketplace continues to foster from smaller targeted or newer, yet still very viable players (e.g. Cisco). IBM, HP, Sun/Oracle and Dell will have to respond to this competition by offering better services, software integration and overall business value.
Action Item: Users in smaller shops must not rush to blade computing without understanding the possible premiums paid. In larger shops, the realities of complex hardware configuration to run specialized workloads, especially those featuring high write to read ratios, will not go away soon despite what blade or other server technology vendors promise. Pick the right workloads for blade servers and reap the benefits.
Footnotes: