Comments Locked

17 Comments

Back to Article

  • plopke - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    i do not know why but the front of that gave me flashback to 80-90's desktop cases , why even give it a fancy design
  • eva02langley - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    They could have done something else design wise, I agree.
  • DanNeely - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    Same here, I got a vibe of Sun Workstation crossed with modern gamer styling.
  • Icehawk - Saturday, July 20, 2019 - link

    Aesthetics of a rack mount component that will be in a server room... yeah, super critical.
  • spkay31 - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    They must have been designed by old Sun product design engineers, hehehe.
  • FreckledTrout - Saturday, July 20, 2019 - link

    Its sits in a server farm so who cares. Although I must admit when IBM started making what appear to be batman inspired mainframes, like the z14, I thought they looked pretty damn cool in the server room.
  • Arsenica - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    Really ugly front panel. It makes me wonder if it was designed by answering the following question:

    "If the box were an animal what sort of animal would it be?"
  • ozzuneoj86 - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    "... Entry-Level..."

    "... 92TB NVMe..."

    "... 16Gbps Fibre Channel..."

    @_@
  • saf227 - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    Yep! Just screams "average desk top user," doesn't it?
  • FreckledTrout - Saturday, July 20, 2019 - link

    Thats fairly entry level in the enterprise market. To me its fairly crazy to even think that 1.7M IOPS is entry level these days.
  • Dug - Tuesday, July 30, 2019 - link

    No, 1.7M IOPS is not entry level in enterprise market.
  • Hamm Burger - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    Sustained transfer rate of 23GB/s? To what? This is double the capacity of the 100Gb/s fabrics that are just now entering common use. What are they using?
  • Wardrop - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    Maybe that's combined over multiple interfaces?
  • gfkBill - Saturday, July 20, 2019 - link

    32GB/s fibre or 40GB/s iSCSI are referred to alongside 23GB/s in their data sheet, suspect WD are mixing GB and Gb, which is bizarre for a storage company.
    Hopefully the storage capacity isn't also a tenth of what they claiming!
  • Dug - Tuesday, July 30, 2019 - link

    To itself. You aren't running one application off of this.
  • YB1064 - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Are you guys going to review one of these?
  • phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    Wonder why they went with Xeon CPUs for this. Will there be enough PCIe lanes available to actually use all that glorious NVMe throughput?

    Although, I guess this just pushes the bottleneck to the network/fabric that connects this thing to the actual compute/processing nodes, so using PCIe switches to share PCIe lanes across NVMe devices won't be an issue.

    Would be interesting to see how this would compare to an EPYC-based system, especially one that combines compute and storage into a single server, where all the extra PCIe lanes would really come in handy (no network/fabric to bottleneck you).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now