The x86 server market has embraced virtualization in the past few years but at least one company thinks it can spin old-style server deployments in a way that keeps them price/performance competitive with modern solutions. Rackable Systems announced its MicroSlice architecture on January 21, claiming that its new product line "eliminates the need for costly virtualization software and sets a new standard for price performance-per-watt...MicroSlice eliminates the need for virtualization software through 'physicalization,' a revolutionary, hardware-based approach to virtualization which further improves the total cost of ownership."

That's an awful lot of sizzle to slap on an unproven product, and the first MicroSlice systems sure don't scream "revolutionary." What Rackable has "invented" is a method of putting lots of motherboards in a box: up to six mini-ITX boards (Athlon 64) or three mATX boards (Phenom). You read the processor names correctly—Rackable uses Athlon 64s and Phenoms, not K8/K10-derived Opteron parts. Just a heads-up guys—you really ought to scratch out "Phenom" and replace it with "Phenom II" as soon as possible.

Rackable argues that these servers are a good fit for companies with a limited need for virtualization. There's a certain logic to that argument, especially for small businesses. A small company with a highly parallelized or distributed workload might also benefit from Rackable's approach; the company does pack its 1U unit with up to twelve cores, which compares favorably to the unofficial eight core/1U standard that both Dell and HP seem to favor. The company claims it can build a 44U cabinet of 264 processor cores at just 72W per-server. The company doesn't come out and say it, but I will—that's virtually guaranteed to be a K8-based cabinet built around AMD's low-power 45W Athlon 64 parts.

The company doesn't list any official prices, but states that "MicroSlice establishes dramatic new server price points, with many configurations starting at sub-$500." Company president Mark Barrenechea presents the new product series as "timely in this economic climate, allowing data center budgets to go twice as far."

The problem with Barrenechea's statements is that it's very hard to see where physicalization makes the jump from "useful in specific scenarios," to "general purpose solution." Underneath the rhetoric, Rackable is taking desktop hardware, jamming it into a 1U case, and calling it a revolutionary advance. The MicroSlice website claims to offer a "Quantum leap advancement in Price/Performance over standard dual socket server configurations," without noting that sticking two Athlon 64 or Phenom CPUs on two completely different motherboards fundamentally changes the game when it comes to cross-processor communication.

I also can't help but notice that the company claims to offer "[a]dvanced server-class features like ECC memory and remote server management capabilities." If these are "advanced features," I shudder to think what the basic features are: RAM slots vs. soldered memory? Replaceable CPUs?

I'm also skeptical of what the company refers to as "desktop-derived components." Ironically, the desktop-level CPUs aren't what bothers me; in my experience, the CPU is the component least likely to fail. I've seen CPUs taken out by power supply failures or lightning strikes, but I've only ever seen three chips fail while operating under normal conditions.

What does concern me, however, is just which other system components might be "desktop-derived." Rackable's 1U unit can hold a maximum of 12 cores; the company needs to publicly detail how it cools this many chips in this tight a space. A full breakdown of parts would also be appreciated. I trust AMD and Intel to build a desktop CPU that can withstand server-level operating environments; I don't necessarily feel the same way about the motherboard. There are real reasons why people prefer Asus or Gigabyte to, say, PC Chips. Any company that plans to build servers on desktop platforms needs to satisfy end-user concerns regarding the quality of the desktop parts they're using.

As far as physicalization is concerned, I think Rackable is on to something insomuch as not everyone needs to go virtual. Based on what the company has revealed so far about its product, however, I'm unconvinced that it's properly positioned to take advantage of that fact.