Any system admins here running an AMD server for business...how do you like?

[DeadSeaSquirrels]

I was wondering if anybody here has AMD servers running at work. And how reliable they think it is and how do they like it? Do they see any problems? Was the savings worth it? Is the performance up to snuff? Just asking for personal/semi-business reasons. Thanks.

 

[AFB]

AMD is just as reliable as Intel. I use AMD for my home server that gets plenty of traffic. Have you seen this link ? AMD is fine, no different than Intel, just cheaper.

 

[spidey07]

"nobody ever got fired for picking intel"

young'uns can try to remember the reference.
10 points if you can.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07
"nobody ever got fired for picking intel"

young'uns can try to remember the reference.
10 points if you can.

I remember a "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" but no more than that

Anandtech is mainly an AMD shop last time I checked. They seem to be doing alright. One of the problems I see with going AMD is support. Dell doesn't use AMD chips. Most of the companies I've worked at use Dell on the desktop and x86 server level.

Now that Sun is going to be using Opterons in some of their low end machines, I think we might see AMD getting some more "street cred." I'd personally have no problems recommending an AMD solution, provided it could be supported well enough, but getting it past managers would be the tough part.

 

[spidey07]

10 points to 'monkey.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07
10 points to 'monkey.

Have computer professionals not heard that phrase?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, some of the Nokia appliances run AMD K6-something cpus...

 

[cmetz]

DeadSeaSquirrels, high-end x86 servers come with Xeons, that's just the way the market's currently played out. Xeons are good chips, but totally overpriced relative to their performance - but since you can't buy higher-end system hardware for any other CPU, you're stuck paying. In general, on the high-end server kinds of boxes, everything has been racheted up a notch nicer and several notches more expensive, and that's just the way it is.

For a SMALL business, you can build boxes that will work nearly as well for a small fraction of the price. A quality Athlon XP system will just win on price/performance as long as you don't need the highest end performance or reliability. Remember: to get a little more performance a little more reliability, you pay a LOT more to jump to the high-end hardware.

Intel has solidly targeted the medium to large enterprise server folks, the people who have several or many servers and need performance and reliability more than they need cost savings. Remember, man-time is expensive, and so down-time and maintenance is a hidden cost; often buying a more expensive piece of hardware is cheaper than not doing so and paying it in man-time. When you get to the large enterprise scale, this can start to matter. (of course, large enteprises are also institutionally stupid and cost optimize in the wrong ways, but anyway)

AMD has to date been unsuccessful in the medium to large enterprise / high-end server market. The image perception of a "value brand" as compared to the conservative choice hurts them, as is the image perception of being a "cloner" or a "trailer" compared to Intel. And also, frankly, Intel is huge. Intel can devote the internal R&D and marketing resources to just the server market that AMD has total. No big surprise that Intel is more successful at it.

AMD is once again pushing with Opteron, trying to get into the high-end server space. It appears that they're getting design wins, which is a major achievement. Intel just plain screwed up with Itanic, and their recent x86-64 switch after years of denial has cost them - they're spinning furiously trying to prevent people from figuring out that AMD one-upped them. The problem is that Intel still has a very powerful channel and marketing relationships, and so while AMD got a lot of the design wins, the server boxes that move in volume might still be the Intel ones. Time will tell.

There are some really interesting "server" instrumentation, management, and reliability features that are in modern hardware, though the software support is currently behind. This is the kind of thing you gain by buying a higher-end "server" system - for example, IPMI. When you have a few racks filled with Dell PE2650s, you really want those tools, they make your life easier. And all this stuff, you just can't get it on an AMD right now, mostly as a consequence of AMD not really being successful in the server market.

I wish AMD luck, though - WE, the users, desperately need a credible second source in the higher-end server space to keep Intel honest and to bring down the prices.

But anyway, this is getting way off topic for networking.

Yes, I use AMD Athlon processors for servers I've custom built, and they work great. I can't buy a big "server" from any major vendor using Athlon, though, so it ends up being a custom-only choice for me. (and I'm trying not to build PCs more than I have to... my time is expensive, while Dell's and Compaq's isn't...)

 

[ynotravid]

I'd have to say that the biggest problem going with AMD has been that you have almost always had to pair it with a problematic chipset. But now that the memory controller (which is the most complicated part of the chipset) is being integrated this will matter much less.

Also take into consideration that AMD is always a step behind in CPU packaging, and testing. Not a big problem if you're someone who can deal with hardware issues and are on top of things then you will get a better deal with AMD, but if you just want to buy a box plug it in and have it work, you will have better odds with Intel.

We get so many AMD returns where I work that we will no longer sell the CPU's without the customer having us install it (we don't charge for this).

P.S. I've got an athlon server running Windows 2003 server as well as an athlon running a linux developement server at test.codifiant.com and I love them.

 

[Darthkim]

Just a headsup, HP has starting rolling out AMD powered Proliants.

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/platforms/index-dl.html

I may pickup a couple of the DL145 to test them out....

 

[cmetz]

Darthkim, please post your thoughts if you do. Networking forum probably isn't the right place though.

 

[Darthkim]

Sorry if that post was confusing.

what i meant to say is that since HP is carrying the AMD Server (so has IBM), its a good sign of tier one vendors validating AMD in the enterprise space.

 

[Boscoh]

Sun, IBM, and HP all build servers using the Operton.

Cray was building a supercomputer using the Opteron, unless that deal fell through...if it did, I didn't hear about it.

The Operton is Good Stuff. I think one of the biggest problems businesses are having to weigh out is whether or not they think AMD is gonna be around for a long time to come. AMD's finances were hurting real badly, and probably still are, for a while. In a business, you dont want someone powering your servers that has a chance of going under while your products are still under warranty.

The Operton is catching on....the question is, as it was in the past, can AMD meet demand?

 

[buleyb]

not to be a jerk, but how is this networking? Too many AMD/Intel threads in GH?

 

[DeadSeaSquirrels]

Well I'm asking about networks, which includes servers I suppose. I don't think this is too far off.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: buleyb
not to be a jerk, but how is this networking? Too many AMD/Intel threads in GH?

I personally think the networking forums is a good place to discuss AMDs place in business networks.

We're not too overzealous here and can hopefully have a friendly discussion without such nonsense like

"AMD rulz your momma, boyzzzzz!"

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: buleyb
not to be a jerk, but how is this networking? Too many AMD/Intel threads in GH?

I personally think the networking forums is a good place to discuss AMDs place in business networks.

We're not too overzealous here and can hopefully have a friendly discussion without such nonsense like

"AMD rulz your momma, boyzzzzz!"

A professional attitude with a side of the insane.

 

[jonmullen]

Originally posted by: ynotravid
I'd have to say that the biggest problem going with AMD has been that you have almost always had to pair it with a problematic chipset. But now that the memory controller (which is the most complicated part of the chipset) is being integrated this will matter much less.

Also take into consideration that AMD is always a step behind in CPU packaging, and testing. Not a big problem if you're someone who can deal with hardware issues and are on top of things then you will get a better deal with AMD, but if you just want to buy a box plug it in and have it work, you will have better odds with Intel.

We get so many AMD returns where I work that we will no longer sell the CPU's without the customer having us install it (we don't charge for this).

P.S. I've got an athlon server running Windows 2003 server as well as an athlon running a linux developement server at test.codifiant.com and I love them.

problem chipset, maybe I have been out of this for a while, but last I looked that last problem chipset was the old VIA original 266 boards. I have always had good luck with such chipsets as the KT266A KT333 and the NForce 1 and 2's. So if you dont mind what problem chipsets are you talking about?

 

[ynotravid]

Originally posted by: jonmullen

Originally posted by: ynotravid
I'd have to say that the biggest problem going with AMD has been that you have almost always had to pair it with a problematic chipset.

...

P.S. I've got an athlon server running Windows 2003 server as well as an athlon running a linux developement server at test.codifiant.com and I love them.

problem chipset, maybe I have been out of this for a while, but last I looked that last problem chipset was the old VIA original 266 boards. I have always had good luck with such chipsets as the KT266A KT333 and the NForce 1 and 2's. So if you dont mind what problem chipsets are you talking about?

Thanks for reading my post. I usually get the feeling that my 3am ramblings get ignored. Anyhow, it was a relative statement, that was attempting to point out the differences between the ever ubiquitous Intel chipsets and the tribulations suffered by the rest of it's competition.

Intel having an %80+ market share spends a much larger amount of money testing it's hardware to work, not only with the various agreed upon specifications but also the hardware produced by other manufacturers. This is complemented by the fact that everyone else who makes hardware designs their equiptment to these specifications and then tests that equiptment to work with Intel (and maybe a couple other Big manufacturers depending on the type of hardware).

This being said, I submit that even though you and I have had "good luck" with these chipsets, in the aggregate these chipsets are more likely to have problems, both in terms of defects and in terms of compatibility.

So when people complain, and they do complain, that AMD sucks and is less reliable, there's a good chance that they are just experiencing the "bad luck" that comes from having less market share.

My first post should have read: "The cihpsets used with AMD (VIA, SIS, ALi, and nVidia for that matter) are more likely to be the source of a problem then the CPU itself."

It should NOT have sounded like: "AMD chipsets are all junk and no one in their right mind should ever buy one."