Adam.... don't take this as an attack, but since you opened up, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on a few things that have caught my curiosity ever since I checked out the lastest renderboxxes......
Quote:
Originally Posted by aglick@boxxtech.com
....with our approach, you can fit five (5) renderBOXX 10200 units (that's 80 cores) in about 4 RU's (rack units) of space. That's 5" tall x 30" deep in a 19" wide standard equipment rack. That's insane "compute density" compared to the alternatives.
|
I see this as the biggest selling point to the renderBOXX I dig the layout, and I think I read somewhere that their configuration is made to be a more efficient use of power, but I would love to see a power consumption test to prove it, other wise it's just words that in todays green market it just sounds like good advertising to me if it isn't backed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aglick@boxxtech.com
Plus, our renderBOXX 10200 units also have a very powerful IPMI implementation that makes remote adminitration of these nodes a breeze. You can even turn on/off the systems remotely - install/update software or EVEN reload the OS...all from a remote location.
|
moot point in my opinion, most rackmounted or blade/server node systems can handle this
Quote:
Originally Posted by aglick@boxxtech.com
A the end of the day, we feel that this approach is the most cost-effective for those looking at building a dedicated renderfarm. Yes, more cost-effective than simply using "a bunch of PCs".
|
what part do you consider cost effective if an identically spec'd rackmounted server blade from Dell costs a over $1000 less ?