We are the integration partner for Facebook, at least in Europe, and one of our divisions helped them work through some design challenges re: heat dissipation, PDU routing, and HDD density. We are NOT the EMS who manufacturers the servers for them, and the well-known company they're using is providing crap quality. We see about 10% failure (to the point of having to scrap the server) rate after we rack and start burn in and system test.
Honestly speaking, one of the things that interested me the most was the fact that FB is running a custom Linux kernel ... and they update it way more frequently than our test engineers are happy about. I'm happy to answer non-NDA questions.
The latter. It's extremely irritating because they expect us to write the system tests for everything from the HDDs to RAM to Fusion I/O cards to network interfaces, and all we have to start from are the standard stuff ... so when they change things and don't provide tests, it is unpleasant.
Nice puff piece :-) The interesting bit is that if you're going to be servicing a lot of machines, then even if it costs you more to build/acquire them, you can get back more in savings in operating them. This is called "trading capex for opex." And while it takes a reasonably savvy CEO to "get it" the number of CEOs who just "don't get computers" seems to be on the decline (at least in spaces that use a lot of computers).
In one way this also puts pressure on folks like Amazon since their margin on EC2 and other services is a mix of over-provisioning and opex savings, having other folks be able to do this is a win. Perhaps the saddest thing was talking with the HP "Gen8" folks (trying to sell me servers to replace my Supermicro ones) who don't get this at all. But for them they came from one server / one app not 500 servers / one app. I expect they could reclaim some market share that way but I don't expect they will.
I used to be a server monkey long long ago, and played with the mockups of these servers that were set up at FB HQ. One thing to realize is they are heavy. Loaded with hard drives, one of these servers is roughly the size, shape and weight of a long 120mm mortar shell.
Easier to rack than the Dells of yesteryear, sure. But there can be up to 120 of these bad boys in a single standard rack, which means 60 of them have to be lifted above waist height during rack and stack. That is pretty strenuous, and technically you should use a moving lift and / or a lifting partner. Especially when you're talking about hundreds or thousands of racks.
Thinking outside the box and keeping the poor floor staff in mind, I've always wondered why we don't build little catwalks or half-height rack units, or even moving racks, like a dry cleaner's.
This comment reminds me of my time as a sysadmin in college. I had to rack a lot of 1U and 2U servers (the Dells of yesteryear referred to) and they are EXTREMELY heavy. Racking them was tricky because you had to put together the rack mount yourself and then get it all lined up while you're holding this 100+ lb thing (which is awkwardly too long and wide to handle easily) at chest height and sliding it into the rails in the cabinet.
One day they let me take a decommissioned PowerEdge server back to my dorm room. It was old, but it still had something like 16 cores, 64 GB RAM, and 2 hard drives. As a college student with no money I thought this was pretty cool. Carrying that thing five blocks to my dorm room was one of the hardest damn things I've ever done, and in the end it was too loud to use.
Moral of the story: Rack-mount servers are not designed to coexist with humans.
Barring those (and the space to fit it between the racks), you could attach tracks on the ceiling and use a moving chain & pulley to move them around with just one person. Granted, with double racks you'd still need a ladder to attach the chain.
I used to do rack and stack in the eBay datacenter. We actually had double height racks (84U). I always wondered the same -- wouldn't it be easier to build a catwalk instead of having a bunch of ladders and lifts around that required two people?
I don't see anything in this article that sounds like throwing out the rulebook. It sounds a lot like throwing out a few stupid rules. But not the whole book.
Of course it sucks, It's techcrunch, they can't actually write about tech. A bunch of vaguely clued in non-techies writing about tech companies for AOL don't target an audience that wants to hear about server hardware. They want to hear about how great (innovative, rule-breaking, etc...) facebook is. If server hardware is the vehicle for that story, so be it.
This article is "company finds business value in customizing critical component instead of using COTS." And that's only interesting to people who understand the components. So they represent it poorly, but only a little bit, not badly enough to merit the weight we typically associate with the word "misrepresentation".
I recently heard of a legal principle having to do with what they termed "overbroad" interpretation. The idea is, if there is a law in the United States that could be used to violate the constitution, the whole law gets struck down -- this is often limited to e.g. a subsection. But notably, it doesn't change the law to be the same except in cases where it violates the constitution, it just implodes the law. There's something to be said about the principle of throwing away any system or subsystem that doesn't get the job done, and not just forking and patching it.
I don't see much that's novel in the article, other than perhaps the rack dimensions. Corporate servers and workstations have been designed for easy, screwless maintenance for a long time, going back to the 1990s I think. I'm pretty sure I also hot swapped array drives back then by just pulling a lever. I can't remember the last time I needed a screwdriver for a corporate server/desktop; I even see laptops now (HP Elite line) that are screwless, at least the parts I've seen, and designed for easy maintenance.
The drive sleds are easy to insert and remove but to remove the drive itself from the sled for replacement you have to remove screws. At least that was my experience. I remember typically 4 easily accessible screws though, not really as big a deal as the article makes out.
You're correct, OEM hot swap trays are only tool-less once it's screwed into the tray (Though the OEMs do tend to ship most drives preinstalled to their trays). The OCP stuff is designed to drop the bare drive into the JBOD/Server.
Does anyone have a link to more info on their differently sized racks or the storage arrays described in the article? I'm not too familiar with the open compute project, but the storage vault design they have is 2U:
http://www.opencompute.org/projects/open-vault-storage/
Don't have anything to link to, but you're right, everything still ends up in a 2U, technically OU (Open U, 2 inches per OU instead of 1.75), chassis. Each ODM has their own unique sled setup for the server nodes, but everything ends up in a 2OU framework for the busbar connection.
Nothing new, but there are still lessons to take away. As a software engineer, I agree with removing constraints/rules to see what new things could happen, bringing in people across different domains to tackle new problem instead of just software engineers, and absolutely watching your users use your product.
Honestly speaking, one of the things that interested me the most was the fact that FB is running a custom Linux kernel ... and they update it way more frequently than our test engineers are happy about. I'm happy to answer non-NDA questions.