XenServer 6.5 & BIOS Setting(s)
-
I'm configuring some new blades (HP ProLiant BL465c G8's) and am going through the BIOS to make sure that things are set so I get maximum performance. One of the settings I've come across is "HPC Optimization Mode". HP's help blurb about this setting is as follows:
"This mode is specifically deisnged for customers deploying servers in a High Performance Computing environment. When this mode is enabled, the performance of the processor can be maintained at a high level even if the processor temporarily exceeds the normal power threshold."
Is this something XenServer would benefit from?
-
Sounds like it could hurt the life of the CPU and/or power supply over time. Like overclocking.
-
@anthonyh said:
I'm configuring some new blades (HP ProLiant BL465c G8's)
Why did you go with Blades? We don't even use those as a fortune 100. They cost more money and have more points of failure. You also are locked in, and have to upgrade it all together. 1U servers really don't take up anymore space once you count all the wast the blade chasis makes.
-
@Jason It was a decision made before my time here. I inherited the setup and am supporting it. I would not have went with blades, but the setup so far has been pretty solid in the ~2 years I've been supporting it. shrug
Although blades would not have been my first choice if I had been the one building the cluster from the beginning, I am curious why you say they have more points of failure than a cluster of 1 U servers?
-
1 Cluster of 1U servers are very easily replaced, piece meal. And only 1 host might go out, which when you compare it to a Blade failure, you'd lose an entire system until the Blade chassis is replaced.
Because Blade Chassis are more often the failure point in the system design.....
-
@DustinB3403 What is a single point of failure on the chassis?
We're running the HP C7001 chassis. Everything is redundant as far as I can tell. Redundant management controllers, redundant Virtual Connect modules (which provides network and Fibre Channel connectivity). I don't know how the backplane was designed on the chassis we're using, so I wonder if it's a single board or if it's separate boards per X bays...or separate per bay, I'm not sure.
Yes, upgrading will be fun...but I don't see how it's any different specific to XenServer in general. You can't really mix vastly different hardware in a XenServer cluster anyway...so if you're doing a significant upgrade you'll have to do it to the entire cluster anyway.
I guess I should've been clear in that these are being used in a XenServer cluster.
-
I'm not an expert on this specific model, and the Hypervisor has no bearing on the conversation at hand.
But the general failing of a Blade is the backplane which is often a single unit. I'd have to research this unit. But that is why most people avoid Blades.
Because of Backplane failure concerns, and then upgrade concerns and everything else afterwards.
-
@DustinB3403 Thanks for the info. Like I mentioned originally, blades are not my first choice when it comes to server hardware. I'm just dealing with what I was dealt, and so far it hasn't been bad.
In any rate, my post was not looking for approval of my hardware, but a question about a BIOS setting. As much as I'd love to contiue this debate as I'm honestly and genuinely curious, I suspect my thread has officially been derailed...
Anybody have any input on my OP?
-
Blade chassis probably suffer the same problem that SAN chassis do. Sure the SAN has dual RAID controllers, but as often happens, when one fails, the other fails right along with it, leaving you with a dead device.
Scott has more stories about this than Carter has little liver pills.
-
@anthonyh said:
@DustinB3403 Thanks for the info. Like I mentioned originally, blades are not my first choice when it comes to server hardware. I'm just dealing with what I was dealt, and so far it hasn't been bad.
In any rate, my post was not looking for approval of my hardware, but a question about a BIOS setting. As much as I'd love to contiue this debate as I'm honestly and genuinely curious, I suspect my thread has officially been derailed...
Anybody have any input on my OP?
Sorry I wasn't looking to debate, just inform. As for the OP, I wouldn't enable this feature unless you are certain you need it. It appears to be designed for custom OS's including Red Hat, Suse and Microsoft Windows HPC Server.
http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04128168.pdf (Page 10)
So I wouldn't enable this feature.
-
@Dashrender said:
Blade chassis probably suffer the same problem that SAN chassis do. Sure the SAN has dual RAID controllers, but as often happens, when one fails, the other fails right along with it, leaving you with a dead device.
Scott has more stories about this than Carter has little liver pills.
Yeah, Blade chassis suck. So much complication, so little benefit.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@anthonyh said:
@DustinB3403 Thanks for the info. Like I mentioned originally, blades are not my first choice when it comes to server hardware. I'm just dealing with what I was dealt, and so far it hasn't been bad.
In any rate, my post was not looking for approval of my hardware, but a question about a BIOS setting. As much as I'd love to contiue this debate as I'm honestly and genuinely curious, I suspect my thread has officially been derailed...
Anybody have any input on my OP?
Sorry I wasn't looking to debate, just inform. As for the OP, I wouldn't enable this feature unless you are certain you need it. It appears to be designed for custom OS's including Red Hat, Suse and Microsoft Windows HPC Server.
http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04128168.pdf (Page 10)
So I wouldn't enable this feature.
Aha! Thanks!! I swear I did attempt some reasearch before posting. I'll leave it disabled, then.
