Hi all - bit off topic for Thinkpads, but have not come up with an answer to a rather basic server question; hoping someone on the board has server experience to respond...

* I have a couple apps that I would like to run on a box with a LOT of memory; 128G - 192G in fact.

* Haven't found any pc oriented boxes with this kind of capacity, so am looking into server land for this.

* Servers typically run an Intel Xeon chip, which is x86 architecture, according to Intel.

* MSFT says Windows 7 will run on x86 chips...

* Don't wanna mess with Windows Servers opsys, would like to stick with vanilla Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate.

So, the big question is, if I get a Xeon box w/gobs of memory, will Win7 even boot up on it?

I'm not worried about compability issues with the apps I want to run; they're vanilla enough to not be an issue. Main thing is whether MSFT has some code in it to kill it when running on Xeon.

Rest of the box will be very ordinary; SSD hard drive, video card; that's about it.


Ideas anyone ??

Best install windows server 2010 etc ,,,,
you can test install it via here (works on my box)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/multip ... fault.aspx
Win7 = NOT SERVER! its a DESKTIOP OS but does have lots of 'features' that can act like a server ef, stream videos etc etc ,,,,,, but then am NO WINDOWS(grrr) expert... not even a fan to use as a deskstop

I think you mean “xeon”. Xenon is a gaseous element (Xe).

Answer: probably. See, for example:

http://www.pcconnection.com/1/1/3488996 ... 57f1u.html

Oops; thx for typo heads up Corrected it...

Mucho thanks for the link; first evidence I've seen that Win7 -will- drive a Xeon chip/box...

Made my day, my mon...

P.S. Just found this blurb(towards bottom) that -implies- Win7 Pro/Ultimate will drive some server boxes:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/window ... ments.aspx

Don't need the bells/whistles of Win Server code, don't want the expense, either. Appears Win7 may meet my needs, so $permitting$, will eventually try this kind of setup.

I think a IBM Blue Gene is sufficient for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene

might want to look @ this ,,, if you lack of time/lazy like me....
works wonders and cheap ,,, I picked up a refub box for $290 deleiveed and does all my home network back! > even shocked me when I tested a recover - it actually worked!
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/produc ... fault.mspx
?still not a MS prodicts fan ! > sorry <
Bonus - I can watch any movie on any part (laptop or tv)of house on 3 floors + basement!

Thanks for the tip, but won't drive the amounts of memory in which I'm interested. Nifty little product, though...

Yupper, that'd do the trick very nicely

Any recent xeon system will run windows 7x64, which you need for that amount of memory. Just make sure that the version of windows (pro or ult) supports the amount of memory - msft limits it. W7 supports a max of 2 physical CPUs, but they can be multi-core (you could have dual quad core xenons with hyperthreading - very fast)

Let us know what you get, and good luck.

Thanks; will do, altho it'll be several months before I scrape together the time/$$/effort to do this.

After more digging, it -appears- to me that these are the boundaries for what I wanna do:

* as listed above, max of two cpu chips, each of which may have multiple cores. This is a Win7 max/limitation. Win7 Pro/Ultimate 64-bit required here, which I'm currently running.

* Memory max appears to be either 144Gig(Intel Xeon max) or 192Gig(Win7 max), and requires two cpu chips to get to this point. What I don't(yet) know is if the 144G/Xeon max is for one chip and expands up to the Win7 max of 192G with two chips or if 144G is the max on the entire box. 144G would work, but I'd like to get as much as possible, so 192G would be nicer(if a little bit's good, a LOT is great kinda mentality).

* Horsepower-wise, with a req of two chips to max out memory, this thing outa be a screamer, as I'd use higher end Xeon chips

* Matrox card I'm looking at:
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/produ ... 88pciex16/

'Octal' card; will drive up to 8 monitors, each of which maxes out at 2560x1600. Can have two of these cards in a system. This system would then max out at 16 30" hi-res monitors(!) I'd start with a smaller number, tho

I'll be running an app that uses a lot of screen real estate and generates a lot of I/O to disk. So, the plan is to run the I/O to a very large Ramdisk and later transfer the data to a hard drive, at a more leisurely pace. Lots of cpu horsepower + lots of I/O. So, this is the best setup I've come up with so far. Probably outa do the trick. Biggest issue I saw was whether Win7 would run on a server, even tho I know Win7 will run my apps just fine. Got that figured out now, I think...

I have a scaled down version of this running on a W700(very nice laptop, too), but even going to whatever's next in Lenovo's goody bag is just not gonna have enough memory. Nor does the pc platform/architecture, which is why I'm taking a look at the server world. The external monitor setup is less problematic on a W700 cuz of aftermarket goodies, but if I'm gonna go the server route because of memory, I might as well crank up the monitors on that platform too.

AMA*.. way jelious man of your new config....

I also had got a MB earlier @BlackFri for cheap = Dual Intel ASUS (but still in the darkend closet and will get to it sooner - maybe (
Maybe your project will spur me to spend time over holiday time to get the rest of items and rebuild my old server (current 'boat anchor runing dual Pent III)

Yips Matrox is one of few cards will do that SUCESSFULLY and never give you isues
And AFAIK Memory = per CPU (so invest in a memory daughter/sub board)
Yip > I can/have used RAM DISK , works nicely...but with limitations AND is very VERY FAST - if u get some of the fastest CL ratings. $$$ !!

I dont use much Winodws( apart from home) but Virt DISKs(RAM) in Unix/LINUX is an everyday thing on most Servers

Cheers and Happy Holidays

Well, I don't have any of this just YET. Gots to get some $$$ going first. Still researching specs to know what's available and how much it would cost to get a configured box from someone vs. build my own. To get spec'd the way I want = $$$$. If things go well, a few months into 2011 might work.

We'll see...

So just out of curiosity what apps are you running that generate this kind of I/O?

Would not a few SSD's in a RAID 0+1 configuration, or even just striped handle your I/O requirements?

With a server board you are going to have to get ECC memory which is good stuff. I wouldn't build a proper server without it.

That being said check this out:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ocz-z- ... ,8589.html

PCI-E SSD drive with capacities up to 1TB and I/O of 768MB/s.

Sure it'll be expensive as heck, but so will a server board and 144GB of ECC DDR3 memory and quad core Xeon Processors.

I think you would get better I/O from the PCI-E bus and SSD solution than you would from a traditional RAM drive. I'd build a Quad core i7 or dual proc quad core i7 machine with 32GB of RAM an SSD boot drive, a RAID 5 array for storage and the PCI-E SSD card for your temp I/O and transfer needs.

Just a thought.

hi Tem*....

Excellent idea, I was coincidently checking out these....NICE HARDWARE for OS bootable!
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.as ... junctionCA
From my Fav. Supplier!
For my 'dream build’! am not looking @ multi-screen like AM* but just a super-fast SERVER that would last my next 10+ yrs. and serve as occ. Database Number cruncher (workstuff); but mostly used as Multi-Media Server/Backups/Network Manager -FW/Print etcetc... Last did this type of build using a DUAL PENT.III from @'95/6 - which now is mostly relegated to being a PRINT SERVER @ the house as rest of functions are managed by other HARWARE BSED systems etc etc...
So yip ...looking for Santa to drop me some $$$ for this build in '011.....

Hey, thanks for the ideas here...that's a pretty nifty drive you referenced

* All of the I/O is write only, which is why I hadn't considered conventional or SSD type drives. If it were read, then an SSD would be the way to go.

* Ramdrives are so much faster than anything I've encountered(for writes). But, they are very expensive, and do suck up some cpu power to manage.

* Currently, I'm banging my drive ~1 sec intervals. Would like to ratchet that down to at least .5 sec, and preferably lower, while increasing the amount of I/O data by at least 3-4 times. So, you can see why I leaned towards ramdrive + high horsepower chips.

* Best I've found for pcs is 32G(maybe 48G?) of ram, which ain't enough. Therefore, off to server land. If anyone knows of a tower type pc setup that'll hold more memory, lemme know. Interestingly, Win7 maxes out at 192G, but the Xeon chips appear to max out at 144G(!) It might be possible to have the I/O go to a 30-ish Gig ramdrive, then have a background Win task offload that data periodically to a staging drive, but I'd rather not mess with that approach.

* SSD issues over time with extended write activity, so not sure I wanna go the SSD route, but will re-investigate. Currently, I'm writing ~14G data/day/prime time Mon-Fri, then compressing it later for archiving(14G-->300M; high compression). Short bursts of really quick write I/O, not sustained I/O activity. Cranking this up could well get me into >= 100G/day, and I'm not sure how long an SSD drive would hold up, and what kind of degradation would occur...could be, a really fast conventional drive + RAID would do the trick. That, with an i7 chip, maybe overclocked a bit, might just do the trick. Would be a lot cheaper, too I don't need a super huge size drive, just sumpin' realllly quick. I might add that it would be within the budget to replace SSDs periodically, if necessary, but I'd like something that'd hold up for at least a few months. So, SSD is not out of the question(yet).

* I also have a problem with the apps, in that I have one app that generates the data, and another that does all of the write I/O activity. Each is uni-processor(crap), so even tho I don't need a bunch of cpu cores(etc), I do need cpus that are on the fast end. If I ended up going with the server route, most of the cpu would be unused, but there'd be a couple cores really spinning away.

Ironically, I exceeded my original plans using a W700 and some Matrox monitor line splitters. If a little bit is good, a LOT is GREAT; has me thinking about expanding...ha, ha.

In view of all of the above, spec'ing out a server setup is gonna cost a LOT of $$$( ), and if there's some possibility of a drive out there that'd work(Raid, too; hadn't really considered that), I'll take a look. And, last time I actually built my own box was back in the '90s; would rather buy sumpin' already assembled...

Any more ideas, keep 'em coming...

Hate to bring this up on a TP forum, but the HP Z800 workstation makes one helluva number cruncher. Comes in as low as $2k, but kitted out to the size of memory you're talking about it is some $$$$, maybe $50k. We have one at work with 48GB of ram, and 4x 450GB SAS drives spinning at 15,000 RPM. That's the reason the drives are smaller than typical. Our system cost around $10k. With 2 QC Xeons and Intel Hyperthreading enabled, the box thinks it has 16 cpus. Actual throughput will look more like 12 cpus, but dang! It is a screamer. Linux is really the ideal server OS, but you seem to have Windows apps to run, so W7 Pro 64bit is probably all you need. We run Linux on it for Engineering apps with a large memory footprint.

If you price out the memory, the price is exponential with the size of the memory sticks. The config we have is 12x 4G DDR3 1333 ECC sticks at around $450 each. The 16GB sticks are $5k each, and they have already come down! It looks like HP doesn't offer the 15K RPM drives anymore, or we got it built that way. You can also get them with Nvidia Tesla GPU processor cards...

BTW, the Z800 enclosure was designed by the BMW design studio in LA. Pretty sleek, easy access.

I certainly wouldn't expect any problems with the CPU. The main problem I've run into in the past trying to run XP for example on a Dell PowerEdge was that there was no XP driver for the PERC RAID controller. I was able to use a generic driver from LSI fortunately (PERC controllers may be based on LSI or Adaptec chips depending on the exact model). As long as all your hardware has the necessary drivers for your OS it should be fine; quite often server hardware won't have drivers for consumer OSs and vice-versa.

I can concourr...these "boxs" R screamers and handle LINUX extremely well...
and talkin of BMW.. I came across one of these being used a Workstation with 64GB-Ram + 2 x NVIDIA Quadra 6000 with 6GB DDR3 each!!!!!!!!!! so I quickly 'borrowed' it for my PPT's via the latest LG 65inch HD Display! ~ ~ was pure magic to use....
Santa ~ bring me one of these config's for my house , i'll leave a big light on for ya to find me in the snow~~~

Hi - thanks for the tip on the HP box; I'll add it to the list.

I -do- have a work around for the large amount of memory that would allow me to get by with much less, but I was originally hoping not to need it. In view of the excessive cost of large amounts of ram, I may end up going this other route. I can't really estimate the exact needs on this baby until I can scale up the number of monitors in use, so it's hard to tell what I'll eventually need. What I do know at this point is that I'll need some real cpu horsepower, and it's nice to know there's probably several ways I can get it.

@AMATX

I happened to get an Alert from one of my FAV Suppliers ......
that might of intrest to you .....Newegg Combo Deal
Just a thought to post here !

Absolutely, if I was going to buy a mobo and put together a server myself, Newegg is where I would go. If you want a rack mount case, you can actually get surplus servers pretty cheap, gut them and put in upgrades. I posted this link in another topic: Weird Stuff in my area has a never ending stream of deals on surplus gear. Don't get too excited by the Xeon in the ad, that's an old generation cpu, not the Nehalem. The HP box also has provisions for multiple video cards. Most of the compute servers at work are migrating to rack mount Nehalem machines. The Z800 was purchased as a demo/debug station which can travel if it needs to. It's about 5x faster than the portable machine it replaced.

Thx for the pointer, Mike...yes, I'd perused newegg a bit, wondering about a build-my-own. At this point, if the $$$ work, I'll buy a conventional box and replace the video card, etc. I built my own boxes in the 80's & 90's and after migrating to Thinkpad laptops, I have no desire to pick up the ol' soldering iron again Looking at this stuff does remind me of chip pullers and really touchy memory chips way back when...

Here I go dredging up old topics again. From info gathered on another forum and confirmed on the MSFT website, it seems only some editions of W7 can address the amount of DRAM discussed here. From MSFT:

"The 64-bit version of Windows 7 Ultimate, Enterprise, and Professional editions can all use up to 192 GB of memory (far more than even a power user would typically need), making them ideal for specialized computing tasks that require enormous amounts of memory, such as rendering 3D graphics."

I have heard, but could not find it on the MSFT website that W7 Home Premium will only address 16GB of DRAM.

yes, home premium is limited to 16gb of memory (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 78(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7) - amazing to think that when windows 7 came out 16 gb seemed to be a huge amount of memory.

Thanks for finding that, but the link did not work. I think this is it:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778#physical_memory_limits_windows_7

As mentioned above, I use a HP z800 with 48Gb at work, and it's not big enough for some designs. Sometimes, you need the big iron...

I scrapped this approach due to excessive costs.

These days, one can get mboards for the i-7, consumer, non-Xeon chips that have enough slots for 64G memory, which means a much lower cost for the total computer.

My next 'puter will come in under $2000, which would be impossible with Xeon chips/platform.

Build/assemble it myself:

* cube chassis. Very small and easily portable.
* i7-3930k desktop chip(way powerful).
* 32G memory(max for mboard which'll fit in a cube).
* couple cheap video cards, as I need lots of monitor space.

As portable as my current Thinkpad, cuz I have external gizmos(ViDock, etc) for multiple monitor support. Take along whatever Thinkpad(s) I need for true portability and I'm all set. Not suitable for quick trips, but for that kind of travel, I already have some Thinkpads that work fine. This config -is- portable if I want to travel with a multi-monitor setup.

As far as Win7 goes, why would anyone want less than Win7 Pro, 64bit? Saving a couple bucks on a dumber version is false economy.

Hmmm


Within 100 miles of SFO

http://www.ebay.com/itm/150770140798
8 nodes of Quad-cores Neon with 128GB RAM for $2000.

This thing is a steal.

Pity you have to use a rack to bring it everywhere