Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. I have 384TB of ECC DDR4 across two blades with 4 CPUs for a combined core count of 96.

I have 384TB of ECC DDR4 across two blades with 4 CPUs for a combined core count of 96.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
50 Posts 29 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • dragon@toast.dragon2611.netD dragon@toast.dragon2611.net

    @SecurityWriter the units didn't compute for a moment there.

    Then I realised you said TB and not GB of ram

    mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.orgM This user is from outside of this forum
    mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.orgM This user is from outside of this forum
    mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
    wrote last edited by
    #10

    @Dragon @SecurityWriter I often have that with G and M…

    (I did get used to RAM sizes no longer being measured in Kibibyte though, no worries there.)

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • securitywriter@infosec.exchangeS securitywriter@infosec.exchange

      I have 384TB of ECC DDR4 across two blades with 4 CPUs for a combined core count of 96.

      It powers a fully populated 192 disk solid state SAN.

      I was told it was old and in need of replacing, but apparently now it’s worth more than the GDP of the UK.

      Can’t afford to run it (or hear my thoughts when in the vicinity)… but I can sit atop it like a fucking dragon.

      And I will.

      agowa338@chaos.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
      agowa338@chaos.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
      agowa338@chaos.social
      wrote last edited by
      #11

      @SecurityWriter

      How did you get 384TB of ECC DDR4 memory connected to only 4 CPUs?

      Do you really mean TB and not GB????

      bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB securitywriter@infosec.exchangeS 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • securitywriter@infosec.exchangeS securitywriter@infosec.exchange

        I have 384TB of ECC DDR4 across two blades with 4 CPUs for a combined core count of 96.

        It powers a fully populated 192 disk solid state SAN.

        I was told it was old and in need of replacing, but apparently now it’s worth more than the GDP of the UK.

        Can’t afford to run it (or hear my thoughts when in the vicinity)… but I can sit atop it like a fucking dragon.

        And I will.

        vikki@know.me.ukV This user is from outside of this forum
        vikki@know.me.ukV This user is from outside of this forum
        vikki@know.me.uk
        wrote last edited by
        #12

        @SecurityWriter this does bring legitimate questions though. I’ve also been pondering the value of our kit with huge storage and memory capacities has risen an am actually wondering if we’re underinsured now.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • agowa338@chaos.socialA agowa338@chaos.social

          @SecurityWriter

          How did you get 384TB of ECC DDR4 memory connected to only 4 CPUs?

          Do you really mean TB and not GB????

          bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
          bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
          bob_zim@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #13

          @agowa338 @SecurityWriter Yeah, has to be GB. The densest DDR4 I’ve seen available for purchase rather than just being discussed is 128 GB per DIMM. That would take 3072 DIMMs to hit 384 TB. No way would that be doable with only 96 cores.

          agowa338@chaos.socialA 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • securitywriter@infosec.exchangeS securitywriter@infosec.exchange

            I have 384TB of ECC DDR4 across two blades with 4 CPUs for a combined core count of 96.

            It powers a fully populated 192 disk solid state SAN.

            I was told it was old and in need of replacing, but apparently now it’s worth more than the GDP of the UK.

            Can’t afford to run it (or hear my thoughts when in the vicinity)… but I can sit atop it like a fucking dragon.

            And I will.

            spdrnl@sigmoid.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
            spdrnl@sigmoid.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
            spdrnl@sigmoid.social
            wrote last edited by
            #14

            @SecurityWriter 256GB LOT 8x32GB DDR4 at $1500.

            Pension time?

            https://www.ebay.com/itm/168162108477?_skw=256gb+ecc+ddr4&itmmeta=01KHKDNAZPZX0FE51AVBSXS82N&hash=item27273e243d:g:gYUAAeSwUfFpkkM9&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAA8GfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xDAV2CgARqGZrbFqW%2BfoJgBnoAUhYGnBwylDYKqUDu0fOggR2KMSQlU%2BRXnusPZCQyo1V2AEbttANn0Vl%2F5RiIQk3xEN1Len0J34EnqgCO6sNynsAJDhQ4CFeayN9iS4mZRXeinvi2%2FhyHwJjUnm3xnN5xNWpBr0IqpUFA5A9cSHlKRGdkOEbGzKCHEzOZ%2BCQeizH%2FUOnG%2FK5G7IdgntOPyUauz2XLBMf1NyegqUixSSS7fCnN2I%2Fj9q9aT8jqp37PEzrLAYk0tbjEJKtcs%2FNgkERs2BRUgvJFehLJIMzwENw%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR4Cw1e2MZw

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB bob_zim@infosec.exchange

              @agowa338 @SecurityWriter Yeah, has to be GB. The densest DDR4 I’ve seen available for purchase rather than just being discussed is 128 GB per DIMM. That would take 3072 DIMMs to hit 384 TB. No way would that be doable with only 96 cores.

              agowa338@chaos.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
              agowa338@chaos.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
              agowa338@chaos.social
              wrote last edited by
              #15

              @bob_zim @SecurityWriter

              Well he only said "DDR4", not that it is used as the systems memory. And PCIe add-on cards for ramdisks exist, sooo

              cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • agowa338@chaos.socialA agowa338@chaos.social

                @bob_zim @SecurityWriter

                Well he only said "DDR4", not that it is used as the systems memory. And PCIe add-on cards for ramdisks exist, sooo

                cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                cursedsql@hachyderm.io
                wrote last edited by
                #16

                @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter which is pretty unlikely for a SAN - if he said 48 TB or something it would be possible but unless you have very very very specialized boards I dont think you get up to 96TB per socket on ddr4 in any cases I know about

                cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                  dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                  dalias@hachyderm.io
                  wrote last edited by
                  #17

                  @adrianww @SecurityWriter You mean just before? When it bursts it'll be worthless due to liquidation of AI companies flooding the market.

                  sudo200@layer8.spaceS 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • dps910@social.freedombits.orgD dps910@social.freedombits.org
                    @SecurityWriter I've noticed price of storage going up ever so slightly
                    jessienab@wetdry.worldJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jessienab@wetdry.worldJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    jessienab@wetdry.world
                    wrote last edited by
                    #18

                    @dps910 https://wccftech.com/western-digital-has-no-more-hdd-capacity-left-out/

                    Expect more increases soon...

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC cursedsql@hachyderm.io

                      @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter which is pretty unlikely for a SAN - if he said 48 TB or something it would be possible but unless you have very very very specialized boards I dont think you get up to 96TB per socket on ddr4 in any cases I know about

                      cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                      cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                      cursedsql@hachyderm.io
                      wrote last edited by
                      #19

                      @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter that being said things like Solid State Sans do have some highly specialized hw setups so we might be totally off

                      agowa338@chaos.socialA 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC cursedsql@hachyderm.io

                        @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter that being said things like Solid State Sans do have some highly specialized hw setups so we might be totally off

                        agowa338@chaos.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                        agowa338@chaos.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                        agowa338@chaos.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #20

                        @cursedsql @bob_zim @SecurityWriter

                        Hence why I asked 🙂

                        G 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • dalias@hachyderm.ioD dalias@hachyderm.io

                          @adrianww @SecurityWriter You mean just before? When it bursts it'll be worthless due to liquidation of AI companies flooding the market.

                          sudo200@layer8.spaceS This user is from outside of this forum
                          sudo200@layer8.spaceS This user is from outside of this forum
                          sudo200@layer8.space
                          wrote last edited by
                          #21

                          @dalias @adrianww @SecurityWriter

                          The moment the AI bubble bursts, I will buy me some second-hand Nvidia GPUs so I can try out Vulkan raytracing

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • kate@polaroid.absturztau.beK This user is from outside of this forum
                            kate@polaroid.absturztau.beK This user is from outside of this forum
                            kate@polaroid.absturztau.be
                            wrote last edited by
                            #22
                            You could offer the box and RAM to the Ai bandits and ask in exchange for cease and desist of operations ....doing humanity a favour sounds like a good thing?
                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • agowa338@chaos.socialA agowa338@chaos.social

                              @cursedsql @bob_zim @SecurityWriter

                              Hence why I asked 🙂

                              G This user is from outside of this forum
                              G This user is from outside of this forum
                              gerardthornley@hachyderm.io
                              wrote last edited by
                              #23

                              @agowa338 @cursedsql @bob_zim @SecurityWriter
                              I also would lean towards it being GB, although 384 GB does seem quite modest for what I assume is quite a high performance SAN, given it's all solid state.
                              I once worked on a mid range combined NAS/SAN head that topped out at 1TB for the high-end model. That wasn't just connected to the CPUs, it was also in caches and buffers for other chips in the data path.
                              That was a few years ago, and I can imagine a high end system might have a lot more, but 384TB does sound excessive, especially if there's only 192 SSDs hanging off it. It might be possible to load the entire array into RAM in that case.

                              cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • securitywriter@infosec.exchangeS securitywriter@infosec.exchange

                                I have 384TB of ECC DDR4 across two blades with 4 CPUs for a combined core count of 96.

                                It powers a fully populated 192 disk solid state SAN.

                                I was told it was old and in need of replacing, but apparently now it’s worth more than the GDP of the UK.

                                Can’t afford to run it (or hear my thoughts when in the vicinity)… but I can sit atop it like a fucking dragon.

                                And I will.

                                ryencode@mstdn.caR This user is from outside of this forum
                                ryencode@mstdn.caR This user is from outside of this forum
                                ryencode@mstdn.ca
                                wrote last edited by
                                #24

                                @SecurityWriter I wonder if the hardware decommissioning plan of the company I left last year (they were bought and being shutdown) is still to physically destroy any physical storage components.
                                It wouldn't surprise me if some of those ended up, or will end up on the second hand market.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • G gerardthornley@hachyderm.io

                                  @agowa338 @cursedsql @bob_zim @SecurityWriter
                                  I also would lean towards it being GB, although 384 GB does seem quite modest for what I assume is quite a high performance SAN, given it's all solid state.
                                  I once worked on a mid range combined NAS/SAN head that topped out at 1TB for the high-end model. That wasn't just connected to the CPUs, it was also in caches and buffers for other chips in the data path.
                                  That was a few years ago, and I can imagine a high end system might have a lot more, but 384TB does sound excessive, especially if there's only 192 SSDs hanging off it. It might be possible to load the entire array into RAM in that case.

                                  cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                                  cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                                  cursedsql@hachyderm.io
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #25

                                  @GerardThornley @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter yes that's why I figured it was still credible because anyone who has a 384 tb solid state san might be rich enough to back it entirely in ram

                                  cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC cursedsql@hachyderm.io

                                    @GerardThornley @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter yes that's why I figured it was still credible because anyone who has a 384 tb solid state san might be rich enough to back it entirely in ram

                                    cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                                    cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
                                    cursedsql@hachyderm.io
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #26

                                    @GerardThornley @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter also if they were 8tb instead of 2tb it would just be like a huge working set

                                    G 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • securitywriter@infosec.exchangeS securitywriter@infosec.exchange

                                      I have 384TB of ECC DDR4 across two blades with 4 CPUs for a combined core count of 96.

                                      It powers a fully populated 192 disk solid state SAN.

                                      I was told it was old and in need of replacing, but apparently now it’s worth more than the GDP of the UK.

                                      Can’t afford to run it (or hear my thoughts when in the vicinity)… but I can sit atop it like a fucking dragon.

                                      And I will.

                                      strog@social.strog.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                                      strog@social.strog.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                                      strog@social.strog.org
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #27
                                      @SecurityWriter@infosec.exchange I'm imagining the dragon hoard as a pile of equipment that refuses to be thrown out. Who am I kidding, that was my office before we started having kids. 😉
                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • cursedsql@hachyderm.ioC cursedsql@hachyderm.io

                                        @GerardThornley @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter also if they were 8tb instead of 2tb it would just be like a huge working set

                                        G This user is from outside of this forum
                                        G This user is from outside of this forum
                                        gerardthornley@hachyderm.io
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #28

                                        @cursedsql @agowa338 @bob_zim @SecurityWriter I don't know what's typical for these things with solid state, but with spinning rust (and a few years ago) large arrays typically didn't use drives much bigger than about 600GB. The preference would be for more drives, rather than larger. The reason for that was to do with failure rates, rebuild times and bandwidth.
                                        The maths might have changed with the technology, but I'd suggest that if you're using SSDs then your focus is probably response time and bandwidth rather than storage density, so I'd expect smaller rather than larger drives.

                                        agowa338@chaos.socialA 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • agowa338@chaos.socialA agowa338@chaos.social

                                          @bob_zim @SecurityWriter

                                          Well he only said "DDR4", not that it is used as the systems memory. And PCIe add-on cards for ramdisks exist, sooo

                                          bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
                                          bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
                                          bob_zim@infosec.exchange
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #29

                                          @agowa338 Cards like that exist, but they don’t hold thousands of DIMMs.

                                          agowa338@chaos.socialA 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups