Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by adriancooney 3975 days ago
That's an expense rack. If the average MBP cost $1500, that's a total of $144,000 in the one rack. They must have some serious reasons to create something like this.
8 comments

For a full rack that's not a ridiculous price. Oracle will gladly sell you racks that cost in excess of a million.
As will Cisco, or Dell, or HP.
With enterprise-ready hardware though, not consumers laptops that fail within a few years, even when they're not turned on 24/7.
Are there good reasons to believe that "enterprise" hardware is more reliable in practice?

Anecdotally, most desktops I used lived much longer than most servers I worked woth. I know a Compaq desktop that worked as a server for 11 years. Still does. One hardware failure in that entire time. (Power supply.) Could be a result of lower workload, but still...

There are superior aspects to the design of "enterprise" hardware (or rather, rack mounted server hardware) that have been mentioned by others: ECC RAM, redundant PSUs and HDDs, motherboard designs that (hopefully) are laid out for ideal airflow, etc.

Putting all of this aside though, the real secret to the superiority of hardware meant for the datacenter often comes down to the practice of binning. Manufacturers have different tolerances for the products they produce; hence why Intel has a million models of CPUs, Seagate produces so many different hard drives and Samsung sells DRAM chips to other vendors and makes their own DIMMs.

The products that perform the best are binned in the server-y bins, the others are moved down the list until they fit another bin. No manufacturer wants to discard parts if they can possibly avoid it.

Sometimes you're actually getting a deal, but a lot of the time you're just trading reliability for cost when you use lower binned items like desktop hard drives in a server environment. Sometimes that trade-off is worth it though.

Really??

ECC RAM and redundant PSUs alone should be unquestioned advantages over standard desktops.

Not to mention hardware raid controllers, IPMIs, designs that allow fans and other parts to be serviced without downtime... :P

Sure, but we're not speaking about overall system reliability. We're speaking about hardware dying. RAID will prevent data loss, but your actual disks might fail as often as something from vanilla PC.
I would say manufacturers try to stick to stable designs, select best components, offer guarantees, but I don't have anything specific to back that.
If you're spending a million dollars on a rack you're demanding considerably more what your old Compaq can do as a 'server' methinks
If you want to spend more than a million on a rack, I'll happily sell you one!
It would make sense to try the refurbished ones. I doubt you'd get 96 of the same model, though.

http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbo...

    Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Dual-core Intel i5 with Retina Display
    $1,099.00
    Save $200.00
    15% off
The refurbished machines are a decent deal and I haven't had any problems buying them for personal or business use in the past, but the big limitation is on supply at any given time and the configs offered. Refurbs are largely stock configs and you can usually only buy 5-10 at a time. There are big benefits to config uniformity and bulk purchases, so refurbs can be tough in that respect.

Also, no one buying in this quantity should be paying list price to Apple, which cuts into the refurb discount considerably (if not outright eliminating it).

Though in a business environment, if this is going to be used for any significant length of time, the (presumably) shorter warranty might be an issue.
Refurbished Macs have the same warranty as non-refurbished.
Their requirements apparently include "i7 CPU’s, 16GB RAM" so I imagine the selection of refurbished and good enough is limited at best.
$1500 is the entry price for 4-way xeons, and that's before you factor in the chassis, motherboard, RAM and PSUs. You can easily find 4U servers more expensive than that, the rack seems to have a 32U capacity and could fit 8 such servers.
A standard server rack (fully populated, just regular app or web servers) can easily be 400k+. Everything built to run in a datacenter is pretty expensive, even if you've done your negotiating work and aren't foolishly paying list.
With such a large capital expense, it makes a lot more sense to rent dedicated mac hardware from a data center. You get simple monthly bills, guaranteed uptime, and the infrastructure is looked after for you.
If you were trying to do automated software testing on native OS X machines (instead of virtualization), I suppose it could make sense. Or something.
That's not terrible. We have a couple of high end HP machines that are 4U and cost more than that each.
Volume discounts?