There has been much ado lately about the new entries by enterprise vendors into the server hardware space. Blades, blades, and more blades. They come in all shapes, sizes, and colors now.
But, are they relevant in the virtualization environment any more?
Yes. I am challenging the conventional wisdom that blade servers are the best way to go for your datacenter, primarily because virtualization is leading to the commoditization of the datacenter. The hypervisor is becoming a giveaway while management for those hypervisors become the product ‘for sale’. Why should server hardware be exempt from this downward pricing pressure?

In classic ProLiant style, HP is releasing what looks to be the next big thing while it’s competitors are catching up to the last big thing. Consider this: The HP DL4×170h G6 server, configured with each of its four nodes having dual Quad-Core E5504 (Yes, those are Nehalem’s), 24GB RAM, six 1GBps NIC ports, and a 250GB mirror is available direct from HP for $15,207. If you do some quick math, that puts 64Ghz of processor power and 96GB of RAM into 2U’s of rack space.
You could argue that the DL1000 series isn’t enterprise class hardware like the DL300 or DL500 series gear; yes the disk is SATA – but aren’t you going to be using the local disk only for the 15GB of space for your hypervisor? The important data is going to be on back end storage, right?
What about interconnects and the cabling nightmare of having all of these individual ports to connect? The high density of blade servers creates a whole new set of networking problems of their own. Connecting 10GBps uplinks to individual blade enclosures is costly, and if you have 16 servers, your uplinks are oversubscribed – and that in a 1-to-1 physical world. Now compound that with multiple VMs on each of those oversubscribed uplinks and you’re stacking cards on top of cards.
You might also make the argument that 24GB of RAM is light for a virtual host. Maybe, but you can swap out the UDIMMs for RDIMMs (a bit pricier, for sure) and each node can then support up to 144GB each. Given that you get four servers in 2U, you may even find that one node can be a virtual host while another is a dedicated physical server. Scalable nodes offer the density and flexibility of blades withtout the environmental challenges, making them practical for branch deployments as well.
So how many utility, application, web, file, directory, or ‘other’ virtual servers do you have taking up valuable CPU or RAM on your ‘big iron’ virtual hosts that could just as easily run on one of these nodes for a fraction of the hardware cost? Do virtual desktops make sense on ‘big iron’ hardware?
While I’m not quite ready to say that the scalable node server is the answer for all of your datacenter computing needs, but I think it’s something that has received little coverage and may be a platform that deserves a look.