×
all 11 comments

[–]childofthekorn[email protected]|AsRockF.P.G|R9 390 Nitro|[email protected]|960Pro1TB 12 points13 points  (7 children)

niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. Still waiting for them to support EPYC with UCS Blades.

[–]Harvey_B1rdman1950X | ASRock x399 Fatal1ty | 1080ti[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I immediately went and checked the BE6/7k guide and about halfway down it says "Other CPU vendors such as AMD are not supported for UC."

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/uc_system/virtualization/collaboration-virtualization-hardware.html#mediumTRC

Baby steps I guess...

[–]childofthekorn[email protected]|AsRockF.P.G|R9 390 Nitro|[email protected]|960Pro1TB 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah the UCS blades were the first thing I thought of when they started talking about server CPU's. late 2016 I was talking to a cisco rep, however he didn't know much inside information, however the talk was "AMD hasn't been a competitor in the CPU Space for awhile" which should've been my answer there. However I had to concede my pride at his statement before I started ringing down talltale line of "But this time it'll be different"...even though it was.

[–]pdp10 0 points1 point  (0 children)

however the talk was "AMD hasn't been a competitor in the CPU Space for awhile" which should've been my answer there.

Be prepared to hear that for years; long after it's stopped being mostly-true. There's always a mainstream lag. It happens with everything. The best thing to do is put yourself in a position to capitalize on your better information in these areas instead of worrying about other people perceive the situation.

[–]snuxollAMD Ryzen 5 1600 / NVidia 1080 Ti 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Wouldn't count on it anytime soon, I'm looking at going Supermicro or maybe HP (if they can ship soon) for a new PostgreSQL cluster come January - want local NVMe storage anyway so blades are already out and if I'm going for a 2U server why lock myself into Cisco.

[–]childofthekorn[email protected]|AsRockF.P.G|R9 390 Nitro|[email protected]|960Pro1TB 0 points1 point  (2 children)

UCS makes it easier for high density VM's. 1000+ even.

[–]snuxollAMD Ryzen 5 1600 / NVidia 1080 Ti 0 points1 point  (1 child)

All depends on your setup, I could get the same density if I went with SuperMicro BigTwin systems - you lose some benefits like the fabric interconnect but personally I've never been a huge fan of the added complexity the chassis fabric brings. Regardless, I'm not looking at high density VM deployment specifically here - I want lots of cores and lots of RAM to support a 3TB PostgreSQL database getting hammered with hundreds of transactions per second.

[–]childofthekorn[email protected]|AsRockF.P.G|R9 390 Nitro|[email protected]|960Pro1TB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aye, so two different use case scenarios. Much easier, and cheaper, to add blades then to replace our UCS and Blades.

[–]StillCantCode 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Really? Opteron systems are usually included in enterprise requirements, and even Bulldozer Opterons were competitive with Xeon. AMD servers were very common.

[–]Harvey_B1rdman1950X | ASRock x399 Fatal1ty | 1080ti[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For UC applications, which is all I work on, they've been strictly Intel. I don't doubt there are some AMDs out there but it was just first time I really noticed it.

[–]raronxx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

cisco..