Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Linux

Dell Releases Ubuntu-Powered Cloud Servers 94

Posted by samzenpus
from the silver-lining dept.
angry tapir writes "Dell has released two servers for the US market that have been customized to run Ubuntu-based cloud services. The company has outfitted its PowerEdge C2100 and C6100 servers with Canonical's Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud (UEC), an implementation of the Eucalyptus private cloud software that runs on the Ubuntu Server Edition operating system."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dell Releases Ubuntu-Powered Cloud Servers

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @11:24PM (#35087190)

    Dell blah blah blah Ubuntu blah blah blah cloud blah blah blah enterprise blah blah blah three letter acronym blah blah blah server edition blah blah blah

    • Yes, your summary was too clearly written and too informative. The slashdot editor fixed it for you.

  • by exomondo (1725132) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @11:36PM (#35087238)
    ...they mean they pre-loaded Ubuntu UEC on them, wow!
  • Good luck with that (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @11:42PM (#35087262)

    We purchased 16 C2100s in August. If you like being a Dell beta tester, have at it. The LSI RAID controllers they have in these things are, for a lack of a better word, complete crap. Technically, it's probably the drivers ... but until they have a working driver for linux that doesn't lose its mind and reset the card randomly (thus making your volumes disappear for a minute or two), I suggest staying away. Far away.

    (Posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

    • I'm fairly sure that that sort of behavior is why they call them "PowerEdge Enhanced" Raid Controllers...
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Somebody, please somebody, give me comparable systems to the old Micron days of yore. It was Micron on the desktop, Compaq on the server side. Well respected names in those times. Now one doesn't exist, and the other, well I wish it didn't.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        So true.

        I had bought a Pentium 90 (that would make it almost 20 years old) Micron back in the day. If it wasn't for the fact that the tech is too slow for today's standards, I'd still be running it.

      • Micron a well respected name? Dell, at the time, had a better less expensive product that was supported by the best tech support in the business. Times have changed however.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      We purchased 16 C2100s in August. If you like being a Dell beta tester, have at it. The LSI RAID controllers they have in these things are, for a lack of a better word, complete crap. Technically, it's probably the drivers ... but until they have a working driver for linux that doesn't lose its mind and reset the card randomly (thus making your volumes disappear for a minute or two), I suggest staying away. Far away.

      (Posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

      Bypass the shit sas expander... we had the same problems... don't even want to comment on our DOA rate... crazy.

    • Ubuntu itself is a terrible server, why not use Debian instead? Or is it only me that cannot find the Ubuntu 'Stable' Repo for running things like NGINX? Nevermind Ubuntu for servers, just use Debian; and you're probably actually supporting Ubuntu when you do too.

      • by ChunderDownunder (709234) on Thursday February 03, 2011 @02:55AM (#35087990)

        paid support with canonical? Debian isn't a corporate entity like red hat.
        Another reason being adoption of ubuntu having a desktop mindshare (Of % of linux desktops) so it's a single platform to support for workstation and server - for dell techs

      • by shish (588640)

        Or is it only me that cannot find the Ubuntu 'Stable' Repo for running things like NGINX?

        How to install nginx on debian: apt-get install nginx [debian.org]

        How to install nginx on ubuntu: apt-get install nginx [ubuntu.com]

        So yes, it is only you.

        • There's a difference between installation using apt-get and actually serving pages with a full configuration that might include stuff like memcache, drupal, mariadb, in a professionally hosted environment, serving multiple domains. Gimme a break. There's a reason Debian calls its stable repo stable.

          • by binxbonx (1002571)

            There's a difference between installation using apt-get and actually serving pages with a full configuration that might include stuff like memcache, drupal, mariadb, in a professionally hosted environment, serving multiple domains. Gimme a break. There's a reason Debian calls its stable repo stable.

            Bullshit. We run ubuntu 10.04 on all our servers. Currently we have 20 servers and will increase that number the coming months. Ubuntu has served us very well. I used to run Debian which is almost the same and also a very nice system. So what do you mean? If you run apt-get install nginx on Debian you just get a full config for memcache, drupal, mariadb with that? You actually have to configure those things yourself regardless. We use chef - http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Home [opscode.com] - for that. We run thing

            • Glad everything is working out for you.

              Here's a comment from someone more in-line with the work I do, from an expert supporting my server configuration:

              "Re: your issue - it looks weird and I must admit I'm already tired supporting Ubuntu. 95% of all issues were related to some weird package updates they (Canonical) decided to introduce over last months. At the same time there was just one and simple issue in Debian Lenny, related to broken git package. My general advice is: avoid Ubuntu at all costs! They a

              • by shish (588640)

                Here's a comment from someone more in-line with the work I do

                And here's a comment from me: "what a load of balls".

                If we're going to start taking anecdotes as evidence, then I can prove that every OS sucks, and we're back to square one :-P

      • The closest equivilent to debian stable on the ubuntu side of the fence would be the LTS releases. They have longer support lifecycles than debian stable and a similar release rate. Sounds good on paper particulally the fact that you get plenty of time to plan your upgrades (unlike debian which releases unpredictably and then gives you only about a year to plan and execute your upgrade)

        The downside is the QA. Ubuntu have a largely fixed release cycle (they prioritize releasing on time over releasing right).

    • by elashish14 (1302231) <profcalc4@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday February 03, 2011 @01:45AM (#35087758)

      (Posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

      Yeah, I'd be pretty embarrassed if I had ever bought anything from Dell meself.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I tried to purchase a couple of them in September but I couldn't even get a quote from Dell's representatives (neither the basic Dell service or the company's account rep.). I gave up hope with them.

    • You know what they say, "Buy a Dell and you get. . . . a Dell"

      I'm stuck with a Dell laptop for work and it is brand new and the biggest piece of crap (in all fairness it's the combination of mediocre Dell and mediocre Winblows).

    • by LingNoi (1066278)

      Since you're not buying those servers and instead just using them for computing people who use this service wouldn't have to care about such things. That's dell's admin's problems.

      Gaging by the amount of bullshit from AC trolls in these comments I think i'll reserve my judgement until someone has actually tried it out before bad mouthing it. I do have to kind of wonder why there is so much hate by ACs in these comments. The astro turfing is high today.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      We use a pile of the C1100 servers, and the problem is not with the LSI controllers. It's with Dells brilliant SAS expander board that sits between the LSI and the disk backplane. We have had the same issues and have bypassed the board. The board also controls the fan speed, so you cannot disable it all together, but you can bypass its sata/sas expander.

    • We have a couple dozen also. We're running Hadoop which means the RAID controllers are not needed. Would have been VERY NICE if Dell had told us we could have purchased these servers without them (apparently it IS an option).

      On the plus side, 12 RAID 0 drives works very fast in our cluster :-)

      Running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. Haven't had a drive disappear yet and we've had them for several months working 24x7

  • Why buy Linux from a traditionally Windows-only integrator with little Linux experience? There's plenty of very skilled Linux hardware integrators out there. I'm a shill for my favorite, Silicon Mechanics [siliconmechanics.com].
    • by Anonymous Coward

      My company buys a ton of Dell servers, all with RHEL. Dell has a large library of linux drivers for their hardware, if you're using RHEL.

      I'm not saying Dell is great at linux, but they do support it.

      • Well yes... but supporting RHEL is not supporting Linux, just as supporting Ubuntu isn't supporting Linux.
        It's kind of like saying a company supports Mac. What version... OS9, OS/X Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard?

        So to put in a nutshell, they're a RHEL shop.

        • Well yes... but supporting RHEL is not supporting Linux, just as supporting Ubuntu isn't supporting Linux. It's kind of like saying a company supports Mac. What version... OS9, OS/X Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard?

          So to put in a nutshell, they're a RHEL shop.

          Which is fine and dandy if you stick to RHEL (and for many shops, it's just a matter of sticking to a single distro.) See, the original question was as follows:

          Why buy Linux from a traditionally Windows-only integrator with little Linux experience?

          That question itself makes no much sense since 1) there are many distros of Linux, each with its own idiosyncracies, and 2) Dell is not a Windows-only integrator given that they also do integration work with RHEL, a well-known Linux distro (and ergo pointing to the claim of Dell having little Linux experience (they do through RHEL) a fallacy.

          The po

    • Dell has never been a Windows-only integrator as you put it. They've embraced http://linux.dell.com [slashdot.org] on PowerEdge servers, for quite some time.

      • That should link to http://linux.dell.com/ [dell.com] screwed up my own HTML link.

      • Microsoft has been embracing Linux for over a decade now as well - They're obviously open-source friendly and showing their worth as a team player
        http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org]

        • Microsoft has been embracing Linux for over a decade now as well - They're obviously open-source friendly and showing their worth as a team player http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org]

          Non sequitur. The argument that Dell being or not being a Linux-integrator (or a Windows-only integrator) is logically independent of MS position (and ulterior motives, whichever they might be) with respect to Linux and/or open source.

          In fact, the truth or falsehood of one company X using and providing services based technologies Y is based solely on one yes/no question and nothing else: does company X provides services based on Y? Their position, promotions and motivations (ideological or economical) ar

  • Never mind. The downtime from having multiple, random nodes in the cloud burn out at regular intervals isn't worth it.

    Call me when Canonical gets a real company to back this setup.

    • Maybe you don't get the point of cloud computing. It's not new technology that allows you to do things never done before. It's cheap technology that allows you to do what you can already do, but cheaper, and with the ability to grow cheaply. Even the most expensive hardware can fail, so if you really need uptime, you buy two (at least) of anything and configure failover and load balancing, etc. "Cloud" computing is simply the idea of doing this at a large scale so you can bring more equipment online and mov

      • by Chas (5144)

        Remind me the next time I neglect to put a gigantic [FoghornLeghorn]That's a joke son...[/FoghornLeghorn] humor tag in there.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    One of the selling points of the cloud is the ability to spin up new server instances whenever they're needed. So why then would anyone need to buy a bunch of approximately equivalent servers for local development/testing/staging when all they have to do is set up a new environment in the cloud? Seems like a product designed for people who fundamentally misunderstand the whole paradigm.

    • You're missing the part of the paradigm in which there are organizations that provide cloud services. These servers are for cloud service providers.

      • Actually the original reason "cloud" computing came about is to abstract the computing power into a "cloud".
        The whole outsourcing mentality came about much later.

        • As in, distributed computing? That surprises me a bit, as I'd begun to think of them as almost counterposed concepts.

    • by Jawnn (445279)

      One of the selling points of the cloud is the ability to spin up new server instances whenever they're needed. So why then would anyone need to buy a bunch of approximately equivalent servers for local development/testing/staging when all they have to do is set up a new environment in the cloud? Seems like a product designed for people who fundamentally misunderstand the whole paradigm.

      Or..., for those who do business in the real world and "understand" that things like security and compliance regulations sometimes make the public cloud a bad fit. Not that this johnny-come-lately to the "cloud" buzz-word party has much else to recommend it but, just sayin'.

      • by Maniacal (12626)
        Working within and using the cloud is a whole new way of looking at servers and, at least for my company, works well internally as well. For us, the cloud has great potential and use for DEV and QA environments, serving static content, and for quickly and easily provisioning additional capacity. We keep our data in house. No proprietary data is in the cloud, just the front end for delivering it.

        When it comes to cloud we think of servers as applicances. We hardly ever fix them. If they break we throw
    • by mystik (38627)

      One use case (and why amazon isn't all over this is beyond me) is to keep a big enough private 'cloud' for your system's base capacity. When you need extra capacity in a hurry you simply tell your management system to also add nodes from a 3rd party 'cloud', and your infrastructure is tested, and ready to go there. You can then grow your private cloud at your leisure.

      • Amazon isn't all over this because expanding your cloud is worth it when you're actually paying your service provider, and not worth it when you're rarely overrunning your capacity and not paying them but 5 bucks a month. Amazon doesn't want to support a business case that effectively goes "hey, we owe you money this month; don't worry, we won't next month."
    • by Junta (36770)

      Basically that is the 'cloud-enhanced' hosting model. Pretty much the same as hosting before cloud was a buzzword, but with a certain expectation of no people interacting with people to do something (and therefore low latency to get what you need done without knowing the details).

      The same principals can apply to how an organization deploys internal resources. Instead of opening a ticket that an admin has to read and immediately react to (often times that latency representing an outage), you implement a st

    • One of the selling points of the cloud is the ability to spin up new server instances whenever they're needed. So why then would anyone need to buy a bunch of approximately equivalent servers for local development/testing/staging when all they have to do is set up a new environment in the cloud? Seems like a product designed for people who fundamentally misunderstand the whole paradigm.

      Maybe you don't understand how the paradigm is actually concretely implemented. Servers remotely hosted in the cloud aren't magic, somewhere, there is an actual data center, with actual servers, running software that provides the "cloud" features.

      Some enterprises with many functions want to have the benefits of the cloud (e.g., dynamic provisioning of resources among the various applications the enterprise is running), but prefer in-house hosting.

      Some operations, additionally, want to actually host cloud se

  • Ya, right. Try to be far from it. Panda Cloud Antivirus Download Free. [is.gd]
  • FTA: "Organizations could use the servers to test the applications locally before uploading them to Amazon's paid service. The servers have a preconfigured testing and development environment. Eucalyptus duplicates the AWS APIs (application programming interfaces)." At first, I was like, They're just selling the PowerEdge server + cloud buzzword. However, a local Dev and QA environment for AWS is nice, especially if its already configured to behaving like AWS. One problem with running stuff on AWS is troub
  • great! more power to them

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...