Talk:Blade server

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Start‑class Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contradiction in introduction

Blade servers are self-contained/ all inclusive computer servers, designed for high density. Whereas a standard rack-mount server can exist with (at least) a power cord and network cable, blade servers have many components removed for space

Which is it to be?

Also, the "Whereas a standard rack-mount server can exist" isn't properly contrasted. And should "can exist" be "can exist standalone"? Or is it that a standard rack-mounted server can exist as a PC whereas the blade server cannot? 78.146.78.223 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that opening made no sense. It totally lost me at "can exist". 63.80.51.227 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porting of SW to Blade servers

It would be beneficial to describe within this title the implications of porting a SW application from a standard server to blade servers. For instance: parallelism, monitoring & controlling the application at runtime, deployment of application executable and I/O files on the file system, etc.(193.43.244.80 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Picture

I think that the article needs a picture or two!

Yes, please give us a picture of a typical blade server.

Edited the caption - had described the hard drive spots as two SCSI drives when they are laptop ATA drives. To use SCSI drives, a separate blade must be attached making the effective blade size 1U (the chassis is 7U and holds 14 blades assuming all use ATA drives. When you start using SCSI drives, each SCSI blade takes up 2 slots in the chassis which, when you do the math, amounts to 1U of space. Wtlgditc 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are in fact small form factor drives. Why do you think they are ATA? —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 15:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited caption to reflect that the two drives are SCSI and not ATA. Looking at the high resolution image of the IBM HS20 blade server clearly shows the two drives marked as SCSI. Dunkleself 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah (I guess Wtlgditc was referring to older versions of the HS20). Also, part number 26K5970, visible in that same image, corresponds to "Tray, SCSI hard disk drive"; see for instance http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=psg1MIGR-57299. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience (though I admit, it was 2.5 years ago), the HS20 blade had two 2.5" ATA drives. While I like these blades, they were also the first IBM server class hardware I worked on. If they don't "rename" the models as newer ones are released, then I have to say it's confusing at best. Wtlgditc

History Section

I removed references to market share as no credible sources were cited and perhaps no credit sources exist absent an agreement between the top players as to their standing. Also, statements about market share are generally disputed and attract vandalism.

I agree. Such claims tend to be biased. I replaced the recent edit by 15.235.153.101 with a simple sentence which includes the major players in alphabetical order. 24.61.223.139 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the history section "Blade servers are about the same size as an average computer hard drive, or about the size of a sandwich." -- I have no experience with blade servers, but it seems obvious to me that they are not that small. The pictures in the article also clearly show blades the size of atleast 5-10 3.5 hard drives. The reference for the statement (http://media.www.wkuherald.com/media/storage/paper603/news/2007/10/16/News/Western.Data.Center.To.Be.Updated.Within.Next.Year-3034594.shtml) comes from a college newspaper writer with seemingly no technical/IT background. (based on a listing of titles of the articles she has written. http://www.wkuherald.com/user/index.cfm?event=displayAuthorProfile&authorid=2405118) Since I have no experience with blade servers, and don't really know exactly how big they are, and/or if they are standard sizes, across manufacturer's, I only removed the line. I think it would be good though if someone who knows a bit more that me, adds a more accurate description of the form factor. Bdb4269 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hack ppl are talking abt here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.178.173 (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to traditional rack-mount servers

Seems like this article could do more to contrast blade servers vs. typical rack-mount servers. Also pictures very IBM focused, but I suppose one needs access to material (especially without copyright)

I wish these were the only two problems of the article. Unfortunately it is totally incorrect and must be rewritten (I have the rewrite in my todo list, but not very high). You may see that it confuses blade servers with their "housing" since the first sentence! :-( About the "IBM bias", I'm the one who added the images; you may see my comment here User talk:Angela#Image permission question and the discussion here User Talk:Skaterblo#Blade server image. PS: please, sign your comments on talk pages. PS2: we do not access material which isn't allowed access to —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 12:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, wouldn't mind assisting in the rewrite - Lipatden 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots and Lots of changes

I've taken a stab at properly defining the componets of the blade system, as well as contrasting this with traditional computing.

All comments welcomed. I've got my camera ready, now I just need to get into a data centre to take some hapy snaps, then we can add some balance to the illustrations.

Lipatden 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a *big* improvement. Very good job! —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 16:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Added redirects from Blade system, Blade chassis and Blade enclosure - Lipatden 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

Please note that Cisco Network Equipment is being bladed as well nowadays. http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~flynnj/hamfest-2003/imagepages/DCP_4142.JPG.html Nearly all equipment is being stadarized and the blade principle is not only saving space but also it's easier for maintenace. In case 1 component is broken, they just changes blades and are U&R again

The 'blade servers' page should not be merged with 'computing blade'. Nobody calls an open system server a computing blade except maybe old mainframers.

Apple XDerve not a Blade Server

I think it is incorrect to list the Apple XServe under the list of Blade Server Vendors; IMO the XServe is a pretty standard, single-mobo/single-power-supply rackmount server, albeit with some interesting features. It doesn't seem to meet the qualifications outlined in this article for what a blade server is. That said, it might be worthwhile to put some additional categories of links -- Blade Server Vendors, links to related concepts (like regular rackmount servers, etc.) -- but given the current setup I don't think it belongs there.

Kadin2048 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Initial RLX headquarters

I met with the developers and executives at RLX on several occasions in Dallas, TX where they maintined their offices and R&D. This was prior to the first commercial shipment of their initial blade server product. Although they may have eventually become Houston based, they originally maintained offices and development in Dallas, TX. 74.93.134.101 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blade server chassis war

Beginning of year 2007, Blade server manufacture are flooding the market with cheap and even free chassis that bundle with blade server purchase. IBM (3 blades), Sun (4 blades), Dell(?) and now in the chassis giveaway bundle radar. :) --219.93.185.42 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referene to HVAC is Unclear

In the section Blade Enclosure --> Uses there is a reference to HVAC. Does this mean "High Voltage AC" or "Heating, Ventilation, Air-coditioning, Cooling"? The link behind HVAC is to page HVAC, so I infer it means the latter. However I think that it would probably be helpful if the text displayed made this clear. I'm not a blade user and so don't want to make the change myself. 121.74.14.224 (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"blade.org"

In the process of cleaning up the "history" section, I encountered this paragraph:

"In February 2006, Blade.org was established to increase the number of blade platform solutions available for customers and to accelerate the process of bringing them to market. It is a collaborative organization and developer community focused on accelerating the development and adoption of IBM blade server platforms. It is no longer available."

The site didn't look particularly relevant to the history of blades in general and has been defunct for several years, so I removed it. If someone disagrees with this move, please feel free to reinstate it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blade server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blade server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.verari.com/storage.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109180448/http://www.picmg.org/v2internal/specifications.htm to http://www.picmg.org/v2internal/specifications.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171202558
Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/prod_031609.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blade server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207161916/http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/in/bladecenter/hardware/servers/index.html to http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/in/bladecenter/hardware/servers/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]