Hacker News Reader

You're going to be I/O bound (network or disk), memory bound, or compute bound. It's hard to imagine the Redstone systems besting Xeon based servers in any of the three.

View on HN

It depends entirely on where your bottlenecks are. If the bottleneck is entirely within your node, then this isn't going to be compelling. If you're doing something that's very light on the resources within your node (serving static content, etc) and your bottleneck is some other system somewhere else, then these sorts of machines could be compelling purely from a space/power POV.

If your nodes are not bound on some local resource, you can as well just run them in virtualization containers on Xeon. The setup will be even more flexible than with (less powerful) ARMs.

But not nearly as space/power-efficient.

If your workload runs on one or two Xeon servers, it probably isn't worth considering something like this. If your workload runs on racks of Xeon servers, it might be.

Then the question is, which hardware delivers the right balance of CPU, memory and IO bandwidth for the lowest capital and operating costs.

Also for what it is worth, each card has 60Gbps of general IO bandwidth, and another 48Gbps of SATA disk bandwidth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com