Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Hardware

Cisco, IBM Announce New Partnership, Network Device 116

Posted by CowboyNeal from the eggs-meet-basket dept.
karthik_r085 writes "According to Washington Technology, Integrators considering server blade technology to simplify data center architectures stand to benefit from today's partnering announcement by Cisco Systems Inc. and IBM Corp. The companies introduced a combined solution that integrates Cisco switches and IBM blade servers into one unit to help speed deployment and manage data center costs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cisco, IBM Announce New Partnership, Network Device More

Cisco, IBM Announce New Partnership, Network Device

Comments Filter:

  • Is this really a good deal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @12:50AM (#9015982)
    I think this is excellent. I bet if you'll wait about two months, news will appear that Cisco and IBM are going to deploy Linux instead of a proprietary OS in these systems.

    These are exciting times.

    • Re:Is this really a good deal? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @12:58AM (#9016016) Journal

      I think this is excellent. I bet if you'll wait about two months, news will appear that Cisco and IBM are going to deploy Linux instead of a proprietary OS in these systems.

      In the routers? That would be interesting. Something tells me not to hold my breath though. Isn't Cisco's whole claim to fame the IOS? What reason would they have to give that up and open-source everything/use Linux?

      That I wouldn't like to see it mind you -- I'd just be really shocked if it actually happened.

    • Nice troll, or misguided?
      It is excellent, a good (if somewhat niche) idea, but the OS they deploy has little to do with it. IBM understands the greatness and is already a strong supporter of Linux, but they are ultimately in the game of making money -- "You want Windows on there? No problem."

      I can't see this changing, at least for a while (and this certainly wouldn't be a catalyst for it).

      If you really read it, this seems like a typical low-level, "slow news time" press release.

    • Re:Is this really a good deal? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Trick ( 3648 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:31AM (#9016168)
      I doubt that. Our IBM rep told us about the upcoming release of the new switch module, and said the primary reason for it was because customers wanted something that would interoperate better with their networks than the previous hardware they were using.

      Putting Linux on the switch modules would totally defeat the purpose of these new modules, which is 100% Cisco compatibility.
    • I bet that if you wait two months, there will be no such announcement.

    • TRUSTED COMPUTING (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @05:48AM (#9016911) Homepage
      This is NOT excellent. It is a TRUSTED COMPUTING system.

      If you check IBM's Tivoli whitepaper, [ibm.com] the top page states right off the bat that it is an "identity management system". Page 7 states that is is based on "tamper-resistant, non-bypassable trusted computing bases (TCBs)".

      If we look at Cisco's BUSINESS READY DATA CENTER Security Overview and head down to the Trust and Identity Management [cisco.com] section we see Cisco Network Admission Control (NAC) ... relegates noncompliant and potentially vulnerable systems to environments with limited or no network access. Noncompliant endpoints can be denied access, placed in quarantine, or given restricted access. The main NAC page explains that NAC only permits connections to "compliant and trusted endpoint devices". Trusted Computing devices running approved software.

      Cisco's Business Ready Data Center Initiative press release [cisco.com] says:
      Cisco is collaborating with industry-leading technology, system integration and support partners including EDS, HP, IBM, Intel and Microsoft, to enable integrated solutions to be offered to joint customers. Collaboration efforts will include sharing of best practices, alignment of architectures

      Alignment of architectures - that would be the new Trusted Computing architecture.

      And they are working with EDS, HP, IBM, Intel and Microsoft. HP, IBM, Intel and Microsoft were four of the five Trusted Computing Group's founding members. But who the hell is EDS? Why they have been selected To Operate Root Key Certificate Authority [wave.com] for Trusted Computing. That's a press release from Wave Systems, another member of the Trusted Computing Group. Teir EMBASSY system was the Trusted Computing system before it was named Trusted Computing.

      The initial Trusted Computing deployment will look like a GoodThing. Its security features will be used for the benefit of companies deploying it, and there is no infrastructure in place yet to abuse the system. But fundamentally Trusted Computing is designed to be secure against the owner. Once a signifigant number of desktop computers include Trust chips that anti-owner "security" is going to turn into a nightmare. If you computer is not "compliant and trusted" and running approved software then these Business Ready Data Centers may deny you access. Websites will start refusing you access. New software will refuse to instal. And in about 4 or 5 years, ISPs may start installing Cisco's Network Admission Control routers. At that point you will be denied internet access unless you have a "compliant and trusted" system. Then Trusted Computing is no longer "optional". You can't switch it off and opt out. Then you no longer own your computer.

      Oh, and if anyone doubts that ISPs would ever instal such routers that deny you internet access, may I point you to another slashdot story Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. [slashdot.org] Even Slashdot missed the story that these are Trusted Computing routers. They are being pitched as a GODD THING. They don't actually block virues. What they do is make sure you have a Trusted Computer, then they can use the Trust system to ensure that you are running (or not running) any software they want to require you to run (or that they forbid you to run). In particular they could check that you operating system has the latest patches and that you are running an approved virus scanner, thus the claim that they fight viruses.

      To top it off, Bush's cybersecurity advisor gave a speech at a computer convention where he called
  • Seems like a good solution though I would expect to giver up at least an arm and leg, possible a kidney, to buy the things.

  • Actually a 3-company partnership (Score:5, Funny)

    by product byproduct ( 628318 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @12:56AM (#9016005)
    The companies introduced a combined solution that integrates Cisco switches and IBM blade servers into one unit.

    Cisco, IBM... and Crazy Glue to make the two parts hold together.

  • this seems like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @12:57AM (#9016010) Homepage
    In huge server rooms (well, at least in mine :-), you generally have 3 areas: a section of racks for servers, a section of racks for switches/routers/patch panels etc, and a section for electrical panels, inline surge protectors, etc.

    So, if I can combine my networking and server areas into one, well hell, I can fit more servers into the same space without shelling out for data center expansion.

    It's almost a no-brainer.
    • If you have a box of blades... especially if you're going for lower-power blades like for a web farm, by adding "content switching" a.k.a. load balancing, with a whole lotta gigabit networking, you can have a highly reliable, very high I/O webfarm "in a box".

    • Take it a step further (Score:5, Interesting)

      by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:21AM (#9016125) Homepage Journal

      Wouldn't it be nice to be able to buy a "system chassis" like one does a standard rack, and be able to plug in industry-standard blades as easily as PC expansion cards?

      Not just from a couple vendors, but from any major vendor.

      With all the industry standards for memory interfaces, power interfaces, drives, etc. I'd think it would be a lot easier to do than the vendors would like.

    • Re:this seems like a good deal (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trick ( 3648 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:29AM (#9016154)
      It might seem like a no-brainer, but the Cisco module for the blade servers doesn't work that way. They're basically just a NIC for the blades in the server -- you still need to run a cable (or a couple for a trunked link) from the switch module to whatever switches the rest of your network devices connect to.
    • Even though it will surely have more advanced functions than the current D-Link switch, I very much doubt that the Cisco will be different in the number of ports it has: 14 internals (for the maximum of 14 blades) and 4 external. Unless your Blade Center doesn't hold many Blades and your network configuration is very basic, you will still need more switches.
      • Not if you use VLANs. You configure the four external switch ports as a VLAN trunk into your core switching infrastructure. Then, just extend the VLANs you want down to the switch.

        Then, the Cisco BladeCenter switch allows to to assign VLANs to blades on a blade-by-blade basis. You can run several hundred VLANs down to the switch.

        If you are not using VLANs already, then the BladeCenter in general is probably not going to make sense for you.
    • Might seem like a good deal until you consider the cost. After you purchase a 6500 chasis, and load it with dual power supplies, two supervisor cards (they run the IOS, you will need the good ones), you are probably looking at $70k to $100k. Now double that configuration for HA (two redundant switches). Now add in the IBM mystery cards, think these will be cheap? Seems pretty expensive for just getting your foot in the door.

      This is the problem with Cisco 65xx solutions, they become very expensive, very qui

  • Is it just me ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rjethmal ( 619327 ) <(rjethmal) (at) (gmail.com)> on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:04AM (#9016041)
    or has IBM been announcing a lot of deals and partnerships lately?

    Is it just a normal activity spike on their part, or could this be a way of saying that it's business as usual to those worried over SCO?

    feel free to ignore, it just occurred to me that I don't usually notice IBM announcing things like this that often.

    • Re:Is it just me ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:08AM (#9016068) Homepage
      it just occurred to me that I don't usually notice IBM announcing things like this that often.

      I wonder if it's just that IBM gets more press lately because of the SCO thing? Or maybe you are right. Both theories seem logical enough.

      Another theory is that maybe it is because of the technology-related parts of the economy are finally showing signs of life again. Now certainly is a better time for this sort of stuff than it was even 6 months ago.

    • Re:Is it just me ... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      IBM may just be working to shift its potential business capabilities.

      they try a lot of things to see what works.

      thats my take, coupled with maybe some more press coverage due to the SCO case.

      but remember, IBM is an enermous company so i think this isnt too new. they are suprisngly adaptive to new endevours. (the "new ibm" not the one that got crushed years ago ;)
    • If you had lawyers as good as IBM, and knowledge of how much SCO is full of shit, would you be worried about sco?

    • Re:Is it just me ... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I work at IBM, and we've been doing partnerships and company acquisitions steadily in the 6 years I've been there. Some of the larger deals get a lot of press (like Lotus and Tivoli) but there are LOTS of smaller ones that don't get much mention beyond their particular industry segment (security, storage, etc).

      For example, on April 6 we bought Trigo Technologies (they make supply chain middleware). No big fanfare on this one, but business goes on...

  • OH YEAH (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:04AM (#9016043)
    Hell yeah, all my network administrator homeys be down with this, i just dropped this on the IT crew like "hey YO, get this, ibm and cisco, they be hookin up, for real, like real vertical integration type shit" and the crew was just like, oh snap, we be ready to get our ADMINISTRATE on for that shit. You know what I'm sayin? Anyway, all the CCNAs in the house, I know they feel me. Ping OUT.

  • Almost Old News (Score:4, Informative)

    by Trick ( 3648 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:26AM (#9016145)
    They've been doing this with their blade servers for a while. The only thing new here is that the previous switch-module offerings were made by either D-Link or (if I remember correctly) Nortel.

    A lot of people mistakenly seem to think these are blades similar to what go into a Cisco 69xx chassis. They're not. They're a module that goes into the back of the blades that allow you to connect your blade server to the rest of your network. You're not going to find ports for plugging in any other servers.
    • You are correct. The DLink switching module is a basic L2-L3. The Nortel module is a full layer 4-7 load balancer. Nortel's module uses the same technology as the old Alteon webswitches. (Nortel bought Alteon back in '00)

      You need one of the two modules, and/or a firewire module for the i386 blades to have access to the outside world.

      All it on it is compact but pricy, and very very noisy.

  • GPL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe IBM can beat some sense into Linksys/Cisco's head regarding observing the terms of the GPL?

  • But wait!! There's more!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by stevens ( 84346 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:42AM (#9016203) Homepage

    ...now with two backdoors!

  • Doesn't ANYONE at IBM read SlashDot? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) * on Friday April 30, 2004 @01:44AM (#9016210)
    If so, they would probably be kind of wary of partnering with C[r]?isco after this:

    http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/04/08/1920228.shtml ?tid=126&tid=158&tid=172&tid=99 [slashdot.org]

  • Switch + Blade (Score:5, Funny)

    by baywulf ( 214371 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @02:09AM (#9016289)
    When they combine a switch and a blade it will be called a switchblade.

  • oh please (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 30, 2004 @02:26AM (#9016337)
    like Cisco has ever performed like it should...

    and before anyone starts it up, I've helped design, build, and maintain a > 5000 CPU cluster ( admittedly, we only process across 250+ CPUs per job )...

    anyways, Cisco switches/routers have always performed below and beyond our worst expectations. And the funny thing is, a certain large vendor that might or might not be mentioned in this above-referenced article always recommends them. And I always tell them to bugger off...Cisco switches are the equivalent of Microsoft OSes - the worst quality, most-prevalent standard that one can find. I'll take a HP or Foundry switch any day, thank you very much.

    Oh, yeah, and we don't even want to get into the auto-negotiation issues...

  • TV video combo anyone ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by choas ( 102419 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @02:33AM (#9016357)
    Hmmmm I don`t know, but this reminds me a little bit too much of those TV-Video combos that were quite popular in the mid 90's...

    I mean if one of the two fails you can still use the other, but you are stuck with the broken secundary unit being attached, forever and always...

  • pcimg 2.16 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmolehusband ( 192640 ) on Friday April 30, 2004 @02:46AM (#9016404)
    The PCIMG [picmg.org] have had the 2.16 [pt.com] OPEN standard around for a while and it's supported by a goodly number of manufacturers offering a wide range of cards, not just blades. 2.16 defines a cPCI chassis where cards (blades) use twin ethernet, initally over the backplance, to communicate with each other and the outside world via a pair of switches, one at each end of the rack. mmmm....., redundancy.

    I'm not sure how much overlap there is in the target markets, but the concept seems more or less identical to this 'new breakthrough'. The artcicle's/IBM's statement that to date, no standard exists to pull together blades and switches, making the Cisco-IBM solution "a de factor (sic) standard," according to an IBM spokesperson seem like blinkered wishful thinking from their marketing departement.
  • So, will this one also have a backdoor password that cannot be removed by the customer under any circumstances?

  • Press release? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 30, 2004 @03:28AM (#9016501)
    When did /. become a mouthpiece for IBM's press releases? I don't see anything particularly interesting to geeks in this soundbite other than publicity to IBM.

    And no, it's not meant to be a flamebait; it's a valid criticism to maintain the neutrality of /. posts.

  • Someone Help Me... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bruthasj ( 175228 ) <bruthasj@@@yahoo...com> on Friday April 30, 2004 @03:43AM (#9016542) Homepage Journal
    I've evaluated blades in an custom application environment, but there was always a concern with the end customer: what if the mainboard went down, what then?

    See, normally, with a cluster of 1U x330 series IBMs, you use up a lot of space, but if the mainboard died, you only lose one node. With the single mainboard for multiple blades and now a switch, what assurances are there for the mainboard not going south taking 15 nodes with it? (Besides dual power supplies, etc.)

    thanks!

    • Re:Someone Help Me... (Score:3, Informative)

      by nsd20463 ( 239388 )
      Dual main boards.

      Each chassis contains two main (backplane) boards, two power supplies and up to four switch modules (2 ethernet and 2 optional fibrechannel). Each blade has two 1G ethernet connections and two power connections, one to each backplane board. And, optionally, two more fibrechannel.
    • If you have a bunch of servers and a bunch of blade server containers you split the servers. If you have 2 web servers you split them into different containers and racks, and ideally different uplink switches, etc.. You use a load balancer for HA / Failover.

      If your customer has 15 servers and no redundancy then you need to see if its even worth it to split servers up. If one of those servers fails and nothing else will work (for that customer) anyway it doesnt matter if everything else is down the the w

    • Re:Someone Help Me... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Can ( 21457 )
      Actually, what you're referring to as a mainboard is a passive backplane. It's incredibly unlikely to fail, and even if one of the traces did go bad, there are two data paths for everything as another poster said.

      Yes, the one bit that isn't redundant in these is the motherboard in each blade, but that only affects a single blade. Every other component in these systems is redundant and hot-swappable.

  • Cisco and IBM, eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by ZiZ ( 564727 ) *
    (to the tune of Switchblade, off the Americano [amazon.com] album by Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers [azpeacemakers.com]

    went down to the colo on friday night
    it seems the network was down, I had to set things right
    I had a little money to burn and no local friends
    So I bought a blade server for each of my LANs

    IBM had a plan, said we're gonna get rich
    Put the double cross on a doublecrossing SCO bitch
    Just a dirty little F-U-D but it's a sure-fire win
    Cisco, when we shut them down we're gonna cut you in
    Yeah, late and wired as I was, y

  • I got called a couple of months ago 'cos the new blade environment also included a layer 7 Nortel switch (yes I mean layer 7).

    Do this add something in the middle of a replacement for the Nortel unit?
  • Sun has had its B1600 blade shelf [sun.com] fitted with a pair of Cisco derived switches since day 1. Seems like IBM is playing a bit of catchup here. We've got one of these shelves sitting in one of our departments racks, and I can confirm that it the switches are definitely cisco running IOS.

  • It seems every time we open a new office or move one, the Windows boxen are up in no time and our WAN people are always switching out WIC cards, flash memory and upgrading IOS's.

    I think that in 5 years MS will rule the router and switch market with the X-Router and the DirectSwitch. GUI based OS for easy setup and one scalable hardware platform.
  • On a street corner in a random city, it happened. Two men, approaching each other, each carrying a large piece of electronic equipment, collide. "Hey, you got your IBM Blade server in my Cisco Switch!" "Hey, you got your Cisco Switch in my IBM Blade Server!" Thus, it was born.
  • Did Cisco not learn anythign from their MGX series. One thing goes wrong the whole box is down. I'm sorry but it is a bad idea in my book. It makes it much harder to diagnose problems. Cost more to fix. And coems with a whole new assortment of bugs. Talk to anyone who used the MGX8850 and ask them their thoughts on it.
    • Slashdot is making a mountain out of this molehill of an announcement. This is simply a different Ethernet Switch Module for a bladecenter chassis. Switch goes bad or becomes antiquated, pull it and replace it. Just means cisco will now provide a switch that conforms to the required form factor and connector. This complements the current D-Link offering (I think their switch is D-Link right now, either that or Nortel, can't remember).
  • Sun sparc and intel blades plug into a rack mounted unit that contains two gigabit switches
  • what a load of marketing BS .. didn't realize how much both Cisco and IBM have been struggling for new ideas. Sun's been doing this for over a year now with their blades [sun.com] and specialty blades [sun.com] .. they just don't invest the same $$ in advertising smoke and mirrors
    • "they just don't invest the same $$ in advertising smoke and mirrors"


      Maybe that's why people think this is a new idea and why people are predicting the demise of Sun...

  • While they don't come out and say it, 5 minutes using it and you can tell it's a Cisco switch or a really (really) good knock-off.

    Here's the config guide for it:
    http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardw are/d ocs/pdf/817-2576-10.pdf

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close