Comments on: Cisco UCS pricing response to Egenera http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/ Studies in Data Center Networking, Virtualization, Computing Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:20:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brad Hedlund http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-478 Brad Hedlund Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:14:26 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-478 Kevin, Great perspective. I'll add that if my application is more memory bound than CPU bound (eg. server virtualization, database), Cisco expanded memory capabilities would result in fewer sockets that I need to run said application - which in turn results in lower costs of "per-socket" license fees paid to the application vendor. Kevin,
Great perspective. I’ll add that if my application is more memory bound than CPU bound (eg. server virtualization, database), Cisco expanded memory capabilities would result in fewer sockets that I need to run said application – which in turn results in lower costs of “per-socket” license fees paid to the application vendor.

]]> By: Kevin Apte http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-477 Kevin Apte Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:05:20 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-477 I have been asking Cisco UCS rivals to match Cisco UCS price for larger memory configurations. I found this chart to be very significant: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps10265/ps10280/ps10300/images/white_paper_c11-525300-4.jpg Obtaining twice as much memory at only double the price- may be a very fair bargain in many situations(virtualized desktops, databases, Object Caches for Middle Tier etc.. ) It will take convincing benchmarks, but I am confident that this could be a competition killing benefit. It is on the Cisco page that outlines the advantages of Cisco UCS. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps10265/ps10280/ps10300/white_paper_c11-525300.html I have been asking Cisco UCS rivals to match Cisco UCS price for larger memory configurations.

I found this chart to be very significant:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps10265/ps10280/ps10300/images/white_paper_c11-525300-4.jpg

Obtaining twice as much memory at only double the price- may be a very fair bargain in many situations(virtualized desktops, databases, Object Caches for Middle Tier etc.. ) It will take convincing benchmarks, but I am confident that this could be a competition killing benefit.

It is on the Cisco page that outlines the advantages of Cisco UCS.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps10265/ps10280/ps10300/white_paper_c11-525300.html

]]> By: Brad Hedlund http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-475 Brad Hedlund Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:14:03 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-475 <blockquote>TO be fair,UCS need a pair of 40 port Fabric Interconnect </blockquote> Of course. Every UCS system comes with a pair of Fabric Interconnects -- just was you would connect an HP, IBM, or Dell blade chassis to a pair of network switches. <blockquote>UCS is not a exactly redundant fabric system, when a Fabric extender is fault，then the chassis lose onehalf of the fabric bandwidth.</blockquote> Well, sure. How is that any different than any other blade chassis that looses one of it's blade switches? Can you point to a system where a network switch fails and no bandwidth is lost? I would be real curious to see how that works! Cheers, Brad

TO be fair,UCS need a pair of 40 port Fabric Interconnect

Of course. Every UCS system comes with a pair of Fabric Interconnects — just was you would connect an HP, IBM, or Dell blade chassis to a pair of network switches.

UCS is not a exactly redundant fabric system, when a Fabric extender is fault，then the chassis lose onehalf of the fabric bandwidth.

Well, sure. How is that any different than any other blade chassis that looses one of it’s blade switches?

Can you point to a system where a network switch fails and no bandwidth is lost? I would be real curious to see how that works!

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Basten http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-474 Basten Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:15:09 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-474 "If I have a 40 port Fabric Interconnect, that means I can have TEN blade chassis in a full bandwidth system – not five as Egenera claims" that's not a full 10G bandwith ,each blade only have 10/2=5G bandwidth. TO be fair,UCS need a pair of 40 port Fabric Interconnect insteed of a 40 port Fabric Interconnect as your picture described. UCS is not a exactly redundant fabric system, when a Fabric extender is fault，then the chassis lose onehalf of the fabric bandwidth. “If I have a 40 port Fabric Interconnect, that means I can have TEN blade chassis in a full bandwidth system – not five as Egenera claims” that’s not a full 10G bandwith ,each blade only have 10/2=5G bandwidth. TO be fair,UCS need a pair of 40 port Fabric Interconnect insteed of a 40 port Fabric Interconnect as your picture described. UCS is not a exactly redundant fabric system, when a Fabric extender is fault，then the chassis lose onehalf of the fabric bandwidth.

]]> By: Brad Hedlund http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-444 Brad Hedlund Fri, 08 May 2009 19:32:32 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-444 Dave, Engenera does currently enjoy the advantage of being a readily available solution with plenty of customer references, you got that right. You have to start somewhere, and right now Cisco UCS is the new kid on the block with zero market share. That will not last very long though, a year from now will be a whole different story (i hope) :-) Cheers, Brad Dave,
Engenera does currently enjoy the advantage of being a readily available solution with plenty of customer references, you got that right.
You have to start somewhere, and right now Cisco UCS is the new kid on the block with zero market share. That will not last very long though, a year from now will be a whole different story (i hope) :-)

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Dave http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-443 Dave Fri, 08 May 2009 18:16:32 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-443 This just sounds to me like Cisco pricing needs to be interpreted, anyone in for some guesswork? If you need Real World proof of Egenera PAN Manager's value all you have to do is go to their Customer / Case Studies or Customer Testimonial page. I don't think they need the fuzzy math, their customers will tell you first hand ;) There are several accounts of savings of 50% or more. This just sounds to me like Cisco pricing needs to be interpreted, anyone in for some guesswork?

If you need Real World proof of Egenera PAN Manager’s value all you have to do is go to their Customer / Case Studies or Customer Testimonial page. I don’t think they need the fuzzy math, their customers will tell you first hand ;) There are several accounts of savings of 50% or more.

]]> By: Brad Hedlund http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-428 Brad Hedlund Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:01:19 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-428 <strong>Why did Cisco choose to focus on HP?</strong> Simply put because HP is the blade server market leader. When you are trying a send a message to the market you want to have a message that is interesting to the largest population of buyers, and right now that large population is current HP c-class customers or those currently considering HP c-class. No offense to Dell/Egenera, but there is no significant market presence there. <strong>Why did I focus on HP in this article?</strong> Because the flawed article by Egenera that I am addressing also focused on HP. <strong>Dell/Engenra = No Advantage Cisco?</strong> Write up an article that makes this case. I'll look forward to reading it. I have yet to see Egenera make this effort so I assume there is no significant case to make here. Cheers, Brad Why did Cisco choose to focus on HP?
Simply put because HP is the blade server market leader. When you are trying a send a message to the market you want to have a message that is interesting to the largest population of buyers, and right now that large population is current HP c-class customers or those currently considering HP c-class. No offense to Dell/Egenera, but there is no significant market presence there.

Why did I focus on HP in this article?
Because the flawed article by Egenera that I am addressing also focused on HP.

Dell/Engenra = No Advantage Cisco?
Write up an article that makes this case. I’ll look forward to reading it. I have yet to see Egenera make this effort so I assume there is no significant case to make here.

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Baykah http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-427 Baykah Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:36:50 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-427 I am curious why you chose to compare to HP and not to the Dell/Egenera solution? Bottom Line: NO Advantage Cisco??? Just curious..... I am curious why you chose to compare to HP and not to the Dell/Egenera solution?

Bottom Line: NO Advantage Cisco??? Just curious…..

]]> By: Frank http://www.internetworkexpert.org/2009/04/28/cisco-ucs-pricing-response-to-egenera/comment-page-1/#comment-426 Frank Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:16:05 +0000 http://www.internetworkexpert.org/?p=520#comment-426 Good info. Strange that despite so swiftly getting 3 posts with the error-prone eGenera blog up, this hasn't made it onto their Twitter page yet... Good info. Strange that despite so swiftly getting 3 posts with the error-prone eGenera blog up, this hasn’t made it onto their Twitter page yet…

]]>