New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Providers - FYI. Wake up call
Dear providers
Front up: This is mainly wrt new equipment.
FYI:
https://semiaccurate.com/2018/09/07/intel-cant-supply-14nm-xeons-hpe-directly-recommends-amd-epyc/ (HPE recommends and sells EPYC because intel can't supply)
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/08/07/intel-has-no-chance-in-servers-and-they-know-it/ (EPYC leading, intel failing to follow (and internal docs confirming that))
Thanked by 1eva2000
Comments
Page not found....
Remove "]" at the end.
I'm sorry. I used the "link" functionality of the forum editor.
@xaoc is right. Just remove the ']'.
Edit: I just removed the weird editor stuff and the links should work fine now.
lol
It should work if you select the text you're trying to hyperlink and click on the link option in the editor afterwards to add the link.
Great. This means more gear coming off the enterprises and into the market where providers can snatch up older Intel gear and offer more service on the cheap to the market.
Win. Win.
Yeah, waiting for the eBay prices to drop.
You mean, the old, unpatched intel hardware with backdoors?
@deank "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
Any processor that does speculative execution will be bitten with Meltdown/Spectre one way or the other. Not even AMD is unaffected by the hardware backdoor that you've mentioned.
Seriously, X86/ARM processors are used everywhere and of course people will target it regardless. Want a secure platform? Move on to something obscure yet expensive like SPARC64 or IBM's POWER.
Well, the thing is, old cpu's are not getting patched by intel.
So yea.
I already said it in the other thread that has like 200 pages on it. This topic has been beaten to the plane of Oblivion.
I happen to be in the IT-security field for a living (mostly software) so I should be with @Neoon. BUT
I heard that (Neoon's) phrase 5 years and 10 years ago too and we all know how things went. TL;DR: "just move on".
This is LET and the only way to get professional boxes (management, IPMI, dual PS, etc.) and provide VPSs for 3 or 5 or 7 $/mo is X86.
customers think in terms of solutions not in terms of hardware. They want their servers to run a certain software, e.g. web server, and preferably one they use themselves and know and on an Architecture/OS they have and use. -> X86
The vast majority of servers aren't very sensitive and the vast majority of users are (painfully) ignorant. As long as there is someone offering some kind of "security" as an add-on they'll happily continue the idiotic approach of buying add-on security. Hell, add-on security (mostly snake oil) has become a billion dollar industry!
So I'm siding with @TriJetScud on this one. It's sad and we can curse but he's right.
@default
Nice pic! And it hits the nail on its head.
Yes and no. From what we know right now Ryzen/EPYC are considerably less vulnerable.
But you are right although the reason isn't spec-exec (Sparc and others do that too) the reasons are the X86 architecture and intel.
And that's exactly what many sensitive companies do since years. Funnily their reason usually was performance originally.
Btw. those machines are not all that expensive. You can get a modern UltraSparc machine with 128 HW(!) threads in 2 HU for about 30k$ (new). Assuming simple dedi slices (1 hw Thread = 1 vCore = 1 VPS) for the sake of simplicity you'll need quite a few X86 dual 4 core blades to match that and they won't be that much cheaper (but plenty 2nd hand available at ebay...).
But virtually no VPS provider will do that. Simple reason: customers won't eat it.
I mention that because it shows the ugly problem (that we find in a similar fashion when looking at the question why linux still has no 5% market share in desktops): intel (and MS) have managed to complete the circle. 95+% of customers WANT X86 (and Windows or Mac on the desk) and the providers like in a restaurant can't serve what's healthy but must serve what customers want.
1) All I am seeing is a single news source for everything. I honestly don't know how "accurate" "semiaccurate.com" is from a hole in the ground.
2) People here can try to scream for AMD EPYC systems, but no dedi provider is going to spec and build them anytime soon. Everyone sees Intel as the be all end all chip that does everything, and has the real benchmarks compared to AMD. Server or part manufacturers are also more keen towards Intel, like for example, I'm sure Supermicro's AMD motherboard or system sales do not even come close to Intel.
I doubt Intel's issues will matter when a provider on here wants to cram as many OpenVZ containers into a box to save money.
Typing ^ just reminded me of a client on here, that screwed up their /etc/sysctl.conf settings for an OpenVZ box, and would cause the system to think it could not allocate more RAM beyond starting the init process. It was a very interesting thing to come across.
We do.
Alright, but how do those sales compare to your Intel offerings? If you still sell modern Intel based systems.
Considerably less, but that’s not the point. You said that no dedi provider will build them, and that’s just not correct.
My experience with that site is a good one (otherwise I wouldn't have posted this thread).
One site or a hundred sites matters little. It's true or it's not.
Yes and no.Everyone sees X86 as the be all end all chip that ... intel just happened to be the only source for X86 server chips.
As for "benchmarks" just forget it. Yes EPYCs single thread performance is lower than some Xeons - but there is many Xeons, some of which are slower. Plus putting a 32 core EPYC next to ... uhm, say 2 16 core Xeons and looking at prices it's easy to see that e.g. "take 5 AMD cores instead of 4 Xeon cores" is a very promising, healthy and cheap solution. And you get some goodies like more PCIe on top.
Btw. many do not need the highest performance but just "high enough". Just look here at LET. I've yet to come across some complaining that his VPS is running on a v3 rather than v5 Xeon xxxx.
I'm working on a lowly Ryzen with 8 cores. I know that there are a few i7s out there that are faster but I don't care. It's damn fast enough (actually faster than I need it).
Another point is that quite some vendors/providers/... want or need to cram as much computing power as possible (preferably at reasonable cost) into a rack HU. EPYC is the answer now.
And in case you think that my Joe Average opinion isn't worth much: HPE, Dell, and Cisco are all offering EPYC based servers. I guess they have demand.
It will take a good decade for AMD to catch up in server market segment - if - they can provide consistent level of support and product delivery.
AMD literally abandoned server segment for so long that it leaves bad tastes in your mouth. Server segment is about support and continuity. Performance is second. Thus, it's no surprise that big players are hesitant to touch it.
Before Ryzen came along, the only big host that used Opteron was OVH in my knowledge and they used it cuz it was dirt cheap.
It is the be all end of chip, the brand sells itself.
It's because Intel is still capable of the same performance for many years, which is why the resale market is huge instead of AMD.
To respond about the "high enough" comment, the best comparison to this is everyone saying use Mikrotik because it works, but in reality its very slow in VPN, BGP, and small packet forwarding performance. This is why Juniper, Cisco, and HPE/Aruba will always win.
Maybe with supercomputers, but again, no one wants AMD for performance, they only want it because it's cheap.
I have not seen one colo'ed at my employer in any of our locations, and we are a Supermicro shop. There may have some demand to sell them, but as I just discussed with @Clouvider, the sales on them do not come close to an Intel offering of the same/similar specs.
You might want to look up the "incumbent" problem. There have been many incumbents in history about whom similar things were said like what you now say about intel.
Uhm, intel should NOT be "capable of the same performance for many years". In fact intel, according to their own words, should have ever increasing performance. A major part of their marketing is built on "you need our NEW processor [generation] because it's so much more powerful and better".
But, yes, that's largely marketing hype and a v5 isn't that much better or faster than a v3. So there is a big resale market. But still, also look at the incumbent problem.
No. Microtik often is NOT "good enough". Older Xeons however usually ARE "good enough".
No. Hosters and providers. And that "as many cores in a rack as possible" is by no means new. Plus, there are (typically corporate) customers who need as much power as possible in a server. Sun for example made a ton of money with their large enterprise systems based on that need.
Pardon me, but 1 single provider/hoster doesn't prove a lot. Fact is that very major manufacturers DO have EPYC systems and sell them.
Am I an AMD fanboy? No. But I DO like it a lot that we aren't living in an intel monopoly world any more. I also like that we get a lot more bang for the buck now. And I happen to like the Zen architecure; they've got some things quite right. But I'm not one those who hunt their providers for EPYC servers. I'm quite OK with the intel servers I use. I also liked some things intel did; Xeon D is an example, the better Atoms are another example.
The reason I made this thread is that I think that intel really is in deep sh*t. They can't keep their promises anymore, they had quite some problems with their chips and with production (and their CEO), etc.
Your major argument is the classical incumbent argument. We'll see who's right.
Not entirely true for cryptographic performance. Intel v4, v5 and v6 cryptographic performance can be as much as 80+ % faster than Intel v3 from my tests.
Absolutely! But (a) I didn't say that intel made -no- progress but generally speaking the progress is MUCH smaller than what intels marketing (must) make belief. (b) Crypto was fast enough for Joe Average even in Ivy Bridge.
I look at it from another (in my eyes realistic) angle: intel isn't about innovation any more. Nowadays they mainly -buy- innovation. intel has become a production and sales behemoth (which has its good sides too) who absolutely needs to push out processors iinto the market.
So, for a start the major progress since many years is largely based on -production- progress and not on innovation. Just look at v1 till today and you'll see 32 nm down to 14 (and even 10 but those were an empty promise. But they were planned). smaller gate size means less power consumption means more cores and/or higher frequency. At times this is very obvious; with some generations for example you can either get high clock or more cores. That's the tick. The tock is refinement, making some small changes here and there to get more performance.
Plus, as we have all seen (and are suffering) intels engineering is utterly sales driven too. Instead of fixing (often well known) problems and even nightmares on the horizon they simply push the performance envelope. Simple reason: Until recently customers didn't even have an idea what spec. exec is. That wasn't worth a bullet point in marketing. But "x% more performance!!!" is worth a bullet point and sells.
Just look at how they handle the recent vulnerabilities/nightmares. The very fact that their stuff is insecure doesn't trouble them a lot. But once word got around that Spectre/Meltdown and related mitigation carried a significant price tag in terms of performance they suddenly got very active and excited. Considering that those mitigation costs eat up a very significant part of a tick one understands why they were exited.
But still, looking at Joe Average I stick to what I've said. For most users v2, 3, 4, 5, 6 don't really make a whole lot of difference. They are Good Enough (TM).
My dedis are stoneage machines with 56xx Xeons. And you know what? They are damn good enough. Disclaimer: If I happened to run major commercial websites I'd like to have v4+. Theoretically. Practically and with an eye on costs I recommend EPYC nowadays.
Which is also my closing point: Yes, a couple of Xeons are faster (especially single thread) than EPYC. But they carry insane price tags.
What about Cyrix, TI, AMD K6, and I'm sure there were others back in the day that made x86 compatible processors?
Who owns Sun now? Oh that's right, Oracle. What does Oracle put in the servers? Oh right, Intel.
Not really, in terms of a DDoS in routing performance, they will both fall flat due to getting overwhelmed. Even Cisco 6500's will die if you hit them just right.
The thing is, Intel doesn't have to sell their 32-bit IP to AMD, just like AMD doesn't have to sell Intel their 64-bit IP.
I will admit that the Xeon-D and new Atoms are game changers in terms of power efficient performance. I still remember my HP netbook with the first series Atom's, omg that was slow.
That's almost how any business works. A business will not allocate resources to fix something until you tell them how it affects their core product or the bottom line.
Except for AMD (who simply f*cked up) those were largely focussed on niches anyway (typ. industry/embedded). But that's irrelevant anyway because I was talking generally about markets and mighty incumbents. Think IBM (in the old days) or AT&T and other large telco monopolies or state telcos.
My basic line comes down to "One classical cause of death for incumbents always was ignorance and arrogance". Pretty much all of them are very much smaller or dead by now.
From what I see intel does not make that error; they ARE seeing AMD and they will try to defend themselves. And that's smart because AMD's Zen -is- a serious danger for intel.
(a) No, wrong. They still sell Sparc based systems (plus, they do of course X86 based stuff).
(b) Who and what tells you that Oracle or some other heavyweight won't pour some billions into AMD?
Yes, yes, yadda, yadda, yadda ... but you again ignore my point and instead focus on another aspect. Reality based fact is: Mikrotik and Xeons can't be compared and old Xeons ARE good enough. Keep in mind where we are. Most providers around here make their living at least in part based on old (even pre E5) Xeons being good enough.
That wasn't the point. Plus some millions of frightened end customers ("Do those problems mean that all my valuable data can be lost or stolen???") don't care much about intels reasons. In the end the "total" line for very many is "intel processors are not safe!" - and that's certainly not something intel shouldn't or doesn't care about.
And, back to the threads topic, that's something that makes many think about getting an AMD processor.
Thought this would be relevant https://www.servethehome.com/intel-is-serving-major-xeon-discounts-to-combat-amd-epyc/
either way EPYC's presence is good for all
Nice find!
It would be helpful though to know which Xeons one get discounted.