Re: Rasberry pi - high density

[Rafael Possamai <rafael () gav ufsc br>]

Maybe I messed up the math in my head, my line of thought was one pi is
estimated to use 1.2 watts, whereas the nuc is at around 65 watts. 10 pi's
= 12 watts. My comparison was 65watts/12watts = 5.4 times more power than
10 pi's put together. This is really a rough estimate because I got the
NUC's power consumption from the AC/DC converter that comes with it, which
has a maximum output of 65 watts. I could be wrong (up to 5 times) and
still the pi would use less power.

Now that I think about it, the best way to simplify this is to calculate
benchmark points per watt, so rasp pi is at around 406/1.2 which equals
338. The NUC, roughly estimated to be at 3857/65 which equals 60. Let's be
very skeptical and say that at maximum consumption the pi is using 5 watts,
then 406/5 is around 81. At this point the rasp pi still scores better.

Only problem we are comparing ARM to x86 which isn't necessarily fair (i am
not an expert in computer architectures)





On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:

> Did I miss anything? Just a quick comparison.
> >
>
> If those numbers are accurate, then it leans towards the NUC rather than
> the Pi, no?
>
> Perf:   1x i5 NUC = 10x Pi
> $$:     1x i5 NUC = 10x Pi
> Power:  1x i5 NUC = 5x Pi
>
> So...if a single NUC gives you the performance of 10x Pis at the capital
> cost of 10x Pis but uses half the power of 10x Pis and only a single
> Ethernet port, how does the Pi win?
>
> --
> Hugo
>
>
> On Mon 2015-May-11 17:08:43 -0500, Rafael Possamai <rafael () gav ufsc br>
> wrote:
>
>  Interesting! Knowing a pi costs approximately $35, then you need
> > approximately $350 to get near an i5.. The smallest and cheapest desktop
> > you can get that would have similar power is the Intel NUC with an i5 that
> > goes for approximately $350. Power consumption of a NUC is about 5x that
> > of
> > the raspberry pi, but the number of ethernet ports required is 10x less.
> > Usually in a datacenter you care much more about power than switch ports,
> > so in this case if the overhead of controlling 10x the number of nodes is
> > worth it, I'd still consider the raspberry pi. Did I miss anything? Just a
> > quick comparison.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
> >
> >  As it turns out, I've been playing around benchmarking things lately
> > > using
> > > the tried and true
> > > UnixBench suite and here are a few numbers that might put this in some
> > > perspective:
> > >
> > > 1) My new Rapsberry pi (4 cores, arm): 406
> > > 2) My home i5-like thing (asus 4 cores, 16gb's from last year): 3857
> > > 3) AWS c4.xlarge (4 cores, ~8gb's): 3666
> > >
> > > So you'd need to, uh, wedge about 10 pi's to get one half way modern x86.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/11/15 1:37 PM, Clay Fiske wrote:
> > >
> > >  On May 8, 2015, at 10:24 PM, charles () thefnf org wrote:
> > > > > Pi dimensions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.37 l (5 front to back)
> > > > > 2.21 w (6 wide)
> > > > > 0.83 h
> > > > > 25 per U (rounding down for Ethernet cable space etc) = 825 pi
> > > > >
> > > > > Cable management and heat would probably kill this before it ever
> > > > > reached completion, but lol…
> > > > This feels like it should be a Friday thread. :)
> > > >
> > > > If you’re really going for density:
> > > >
> > > > - At 0.83 inches high you could go 2x per U (depends on your mounting
> > > > system and how much space it burns)
> > > > - I’d expect you could get at least 7 wide if not 8 with the right
> > > > micro-USB power connector
> > > > - In most datacenter racks I’ve seen you could get at least 8 deep even
> > > > with cable breathing room
> > > >
> > > > So somewhere between 7x8x2 = 112 and 8x8x2 = 128 per U. And if you get
> > > > truly creative about how you stack them you could probably beat that
> > > > without too much effort.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn’t solve for cooling, but I think even at these numbers you
> > > > could probably make it work with nice, tight cabling.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -c