You are on page 1of 13

FUTURE INSTITUTION OF ENGG.

&TECHNOLOYG, BAREILLY

COLLOQUIUM REPORT
ON

Blade Servers
MCA-611 Of

MASTER OF COMPUTER APPLICATION

SUBMITTED BY SUMIT KUMAR 1047614044


2012-2013 Under the supervision of Ms. Neha Agrawal

Department of Computer Applications

Future Institute of Engineering and Technology Bareilly


NH-24,

CERTIFICATE
This is certify that the colloquium entitled

has been carried out by Mr./Ms.

Of M.C.A Semester-VI Approval No. as a partial fulfillment of the course, for the Academic Year 2012-2013.

COLLOQUIUM OF MCA Academic Year Approved By

Internal Guide Name and Sign (Examiners)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

One must be grateful for the co-operation and assistance given in ties self-oriented Individualistic world, which is very difficult from each and everyone. Even I cannot in full measure, reciprocate the kindness shown and contribution made by various persons in this endeavor, though I shall always remember them with high gratitude. I must, however, specially acknowledge my indebtness to Mr. Abhishek Saxena(Asst.Director and H.O.D. FIET, Bareilly) who provided me the opportunity to do my Research in FIET Bareilly. I am also very much thankful to Ms. Neha Agarwal( Internal Project Advisor appointed by the Department) who gave me his continuous guidance and encourage me continuously during my training. I shall always very much thankful to. I extend my heartiest gratitude for providing me the opportunity to be a part of an esteemed research like Blade Servers.

Abstract
Blade servers are self-contained computer servers, designed for high density. Slim, hot swappable blade servers fit in a single chassis like books in a bookshelf - and each is an independent server, with its own processors, memory, storage, network controllers, operating system and applications. The blade server simply slides into a bay in the chassis and plugs into a mid- or backplane, sharing power, fans, floppy drives, switches, and ports with other blade servers. Blade servers are self-contained computer servers, designed for high density. Whereas a standard rack-mount server can exist with (at least) a power cord and network cable, blade servers have many components removed for space, power and other considerations while still having all the functional components to be considered a computer .A blade enclosure provides services such as power, cooling, networking, various interconnects and management though different blade providers have differing principles around what should and should not be included in the blade itself (and sometimes in the enclosure altogether). Together these form the blade system. In a standard server-rack configuration, 1U (one rack unit, 19" wide and 1.75" tall) is the minimum possible size of any equipment. The principal benefit of and the reason behind the push towards, blade computing is that components are no longer restricted to these minimum size requirements. The most common computer rack form-factor being 42U high, this limits the number of discrete computer devices directly mounted in a rack to 42 components. Blades do not have this limitation; densities of 100 computers per rack and more are achievable with the current generation of blade systems

TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF FIGURES
1. INTRODUCTION 2. HISTORY

3. BLADE ENCLOSURE 1. POWER 2. COOLING 3. NETWORKING 4. STORAGE 5. OTHER BLADES 6. USES 7. BLADE MODELS 8. CONCLUSION 9. FUTURE ENHANCEMENT 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION
A blade server is a stripped-down server computer with a modular design optimized to minimize the use of physical space and energy. Whereas a standard rack-mount server can function with (at least) a power cord and network cable, blade servers have many components removed to save space, minimize power consumption and other considerations, while stillhaving all the functional components to be considered a computer.[clarification needed] A blade enclosure, which can hold multiple blade servers, provides services such as power, cooling,networking, various interconnects and management. Together, blades and the blade

enclosure form a blade system (also the name of a proprietary solution from Hewlett-Packard). Different blade providers have differing principles regarding what to include in the blade itself, and in the blade system altogether.

Figure: IBM HS20 blade server. Two bays for 2.5" (6.4 cm) SCSI hard drives appear in the upper left area of the image.

In a standard server-rack configuration, 1U (one rack unit, 19" [48 cm] wide and 1.75" [4.45 cm]tall) defines the minimum possible size of any equipment. The principal benefit and justification of blade computing relates to lifting this restriction so as to reduce size requirements. The most common computer rack form-factor is 42U high, which limits the number of discrete computer devices directly mountable in a rack to 42 components. Blades do not have this limitation. As of 2009, densities of up to 128 discrete servers per rack are achievable with blade systems.

HISTORY

Developers first placed complete microcomputers on cards and packaged them in standard 19inch racks in the 1970s soon after the introduction of 8-bit microprocessors. This architecture operated in the industrial process control industry as an alternative to minicomputer control-

systems. Early models stored programs in EPROM and were limited to a single function with a small real time executive. The VMEbus architecture (ca. 1981) defined a computer interface which included implementation of a board-level computer installed in a chassis backplane with multiple slots for pluggable boards to provide I/O, memory, or additional computing. The PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group PICMG developed a chassis/blade structure for the then emerging Peripheral Component Interconnect bus PCI which is called CompactPCI. Common among these chassis based computers was the fact that the entire chassis was a single system. While a chassis might include multiple computing elements to provide the desired level of performance and redundancy, there was always one board in charge, one master board coordinating the operation of the entire system. PICMG expanded the CompactPCI specification with the use of standard Ethernet connectivity between boards across the backplane. The PICMG 2.16 CompactPCI Packet Switching Backplane specification was adopted in Sept 2001 (PICMG specifications). This provided the first open architecture for a multi-server chassis. PICMG followed with the larger and more feature-rich AdvancedTCA specification targeting the telecom industry's need for a high availability and dense computing platform with extended product life (10+ years). While AdvancedTCA system and boards typically sell for higher prices than blade servers, AdvancedTCA suppliers claim that low operating-expenses and total-cost-of-ownership can make AdvancedTCA-based solutions a cost-effective alternative for many building blocks of the next generation telecom network. The first commercialized blade server architecture[citation needed] was invented by Christopher Hipp and David Kirkeby and their patent (US 6411506) was assigned to Houston-based RLX Technologies.[15] RLX, which consisted of mostly former Compaq Computer Corp employees, including Hipp and Kirkeby, shipped its first commercial blade server in 2001[16] and was acquired by Hewlett Packard (HP) in 2005.[17] In February 2006, Blade.org was established to increase the number of blade platform solutions available for customers and to accelerate the process of bringing them to market. It is a collaborative organization and developer community focused on accelerating the development and adoption of IBM blade server platforms. It is no longer available. The name blade server appeared when a card included the processor, memory, I/O and nonvolatile program storage (flash memory or small hard disk(s)). This allowed manufacturers to package a complete server, with its operating system and applications, on a single card / board / blade. These blades could then operate independently within a common chassis, doing the work of multiple separate server boxes more efficiently. In addition to the most obvious benefit of this packaging (less space-consumption), additional efficiency benefits have become clear in power, cooling, management, and networking due to the pooling or sharing of common infrastructure to supports the entire chassis, rather than providing each of these on a per server box basis.

The research firm IDC identified [18] the major players in the blade market as HP, IBM, Dell, and Cisco. Other companies selling blade servers include AVADirect, Oracle, Egenera, Supermicro, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Rackable (Hybrid Blade), Cirrascale and Intel.

Blade enclosure

Enclosure (or chassis) performs many of the non-core computing services found in most computers. Non-blade systems typically use bulky, hot and space-inefficient components, and may duplicate these across many computers that may or may not perform at capacity. By locating these services in one place and sharing them between the blade computers, the overall utilization becomes higher. The specifics of which services are provided may vary by vendor.

Power

Computers operate over a range of DC voltages, but utilities deliver power as AC, and at higher voltages than required within computers. Converting this current requires one or more power supply units (or PSUs). To ensure that the failure of one power source does not affect the operation of the computer, even entry-level servers may have redundant power supplies, again adding to the bulk and heat output of the design. The blade enclosure's power supply provides a single power source for all blades within the enclosure. This single power source may come as a power supply in the enclosure or as a dedicated separate PSU supplying DC to multiple enclosures.[2][3] This setup reduces the number of PSUs required to provide a resilient power supply. The popularity of blade servers, and their own appetite for power, has led to an increase in the number of rack-mountable uninterruptible power supply (or UPS) units, including units targeted specifically towards blade servers (such as the BladeUPS).

Cooling

During operation, electrical and mechanical components produce heat, which a system must dissipate to ensure the proper functioning of its components. Most blade enclosures, like most computing systems, remove heat by using fans. A frequently underestimated problem when designing high-performance computer systems involves the conflict between the amount of heat a system generates and the ability of its fans to remove the heat. The blade's shared power and cooling means that it does not generate as much heat as traditional servers. Newer blade-enclosures feature variable-speed fans and control logic, or even liquid cooling-systems[4][5] that adjust to meet the system's cooling requirements. At the same time, the increased density of blade-server configurations can still result in higher overall demands for cooling with racks populated at over 50% full. This is especially true with early-generation blades. In absolute terms, a fully populated rack of blade servers is likely to require more cooling capacity than a fully populated rack of standard 1U servers. This is because one can fit up to 128 blade servers in the same rack that will only hold 42 1U rack mount servers.[6]
Networking

Blade servers generally include integrated or optional network interface controllers for Ethernet or host adapters for fibre channel storage systems or Converged Network Adapter for a combined solution of storage and data via one FCoE interface. In many blades at least one NIC or CNA is embedded on the motherboard (NOB) and extra interfaces can be added using mezzanine cards. A blade enclosure can provide individual external ports to which each network interface on a blade will connect. Alternatively, a blade enclosure can aggregate network interfaces into interconnect devices (such as switches) built into the blade enclosure or in networking blades.[7][8]

Storage
While computers typically use hard disks to store operating systems, applications and data, these are not necessarily required locally. Many storage connection methods (e.g. FireWire, SATA, ESATA, SCSI, SAS DAS, FC and iSCSI) are readily moved outside the server, though not all are used in enterprise-level installations. Implementing these connection interfaces within the computer presents similar challenges to the networking interfaces (indeed iSCSI runs over the network interface), and similarly these can be removed from the blade and presented individually or aggregated either on the chassis or through other blades.

The ability to boot the blade from a storage area network (SAN) allows for an entirely disk-free blade, an example of which implementation is the Intel Modular Server System. This allows more board space to be devoted to extra memory or additional CPUs. Depending on vendors, some blade servers may include or exclude internal storage devices.

Other blades
Since blade enclosures provide a standard method for delivering basic services to computer devices, other types of devices can also utilize blade enclosures. Blades providing switching, routing, storage, SAN and fibre-channel access can slot into the enclosure to provide these services to all members of the enclosure. Systems administrators can use storage blades where a requirement exists for additional local storage.

Uses
Blade servers function well for specific purposes such as web hosting, virtualization, and cluster computing. Individual blades are typically hot-swappable. As users deal with larger and more diverse workloads, they add more processing power, memory and I/O bandwidth to blade servers. Although blade server technology in theory allows for open, cross-vendor solutions, the stage of development of the technology as of 2009 is such that users encounter fewer problems when using blades, racks and blade management tools from the same vendor. Eventual standardization of the technology might result in more choices for consumers;[12][13] as of 2009 increasing numbers of third-party software vendors have started to enter this growing field.[14] Blade servers do not, however, provide the answer to every computing problem. One can view them as a form of productized server-farm that borrows from mainframe packaging, cooling, and power-supply technology. Very large computing tasks may still require server farms of blade servers, and because of blade servers' high power density, can suffer even more acutely from the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning problems that affect large conventional server farms.

Blade models

Though many independent professional computer manufacturers such as Supermicro offer blade solutions, the blade server market continues to be dominated by large public IT companies such as HP, which, as of Q1 2011, owns 50.0% market share, with IBM coming in second with 20.2%, followed by Cisco with 9.4% and Dell with 8.4%.[19] Other competitors include Oracle (due to its purchase of Sun Microsystems), and Fujitsu. HP's current line consists of two chassis models, the c3000 which holds up to 8 half-height ProLiant line blades (also available in tower form), and the c7000 (10U) which holds up to 16 half-height ProLiant blades. Dell's latest solution, the M1000e is a 10U modular enclosure and holds up to sixteen half-height PowerEdge blade servers.

CONCLUSION
Biometrics refers to an automatic authentication of a person based on his physiological and/or behavioral characteristics. The usage of biometrics as a reliable means of authentication is currently gaining momentum, thou the industry is still evolving and emerging. The unimodal biometric recognition systems have to contend with a variety of problems and thus presently the amount of applications employing unimodal biometric systems is quite limited. Some limitations of the unimodal biometric systems can be alleviated by using multimodal biometric systems,

which integrate information at various levels to improve performance. The future of biometrics can thus be envisaged to perhaps belong to multimodal biometric systems. Recognition errors in automated fingerprint recognition systems, like other biometric systems, can be grouped into two classifications: false accepts and false rejects. When addressing the problem of a false accept, the question is: how does one differentiate an authorized user from an unauthorized user? The uniqueness analyses in this study provide answers to this question: Given a certain number of pores along a ridge or a number of pores in a constellation, the probability of someone else having an identical configuration is sufficiently low to preclude a false accept. Still, false accepts persist. The value of the uniqueness of a configuration is reduced when using an automated system, for many parameters which were designed to decrease the number of false rejects actually increase the probability of a false accept. For example, automated matching requires accommodation of phenomena such as plasticity and distortion; therefore, parameters such as search areas are built in to allow a degree of flexibility in feature detection. Thus, the possibility exists that features in an impostors print may be falsely detected as matching features in an enrolled users print. On the other side of the coin, however, is the question of false rejects. The problem that must be addressed in this case is: How does one recognize an authorized user as such, regardless of changes that have occurred since the enrollment procedure? These changes can include differences in location, orientation, shape or size of respective features due to distortion or plasticity. Errors can occur as a result of the processing and feature detection stage or as a result of some features being physiologically unreliable. Performance is defined by these error rates. In this paper, a model for an automated matching system was developed, which incorporates the parameters determining the error rates. From this model, performance of a generic automated fingerprint recognition system can be predicted.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Adler. Sample images can be independently restored from facerecognition templates. Available at http://www.site.uottawa.ca/adler/publications/2003/adler-2003-frtemplates.pdf, 2003. I. Armstrong. Passwords exposed: users are the weakest link . Available at http://www.safestone.com/downloads/news/news passwordsexposed sc magazine may03.pdf, 2003.

P.J. Besl and N.D. McKay. A method for registration of 3-d shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2):239{256, February1992. R. M. Bolle, N. K. Ratha, A. Senior, and S.Pankanti. Minutiae template exchange format. In Proc. AutoID 1999, IEEE Workshop on Automatic Identification Advanced Technologies, pages 74{77, 1999. R. Cappelli, A. Erol, D. Maio, and D. Maltoni. Synthetic fingerprint imagegeneration. In Proc. International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR),vol. 3, pages 475{478, 2000. T. C. Clancy, N. Kiyavash, and D. J. Lin. Secure smartcard-based fingerprintauthentication. In Proc. ACM SIGMM Multimedia, Biometrics Methods andApplications Workshop, pages 45{52, 2003. Colorado State University. Evaluation of face recognition algorithms. Availableat www.cs.colostate.edu/evalfacerec/index.html. Congress of the United States of America. Enhanced Border Security and VisaEntry Reform Act of 2002. Available at http://unitedstatesvisas.gov/pdfs/Enhanced Border SecurityandVisa Entry.pdf, 2002. S. Dass and A. K. Jain. Fingerprint classification using orientation field owcurves. In Proc. Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and ImageProcessing, pages 650{655, 2004. S. C. Dass. Markov random field models for directional eld and singularity extraction in fingerprint images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing,13(10):1358{1367, October 2004. P.W. Hallinan, Recognizing Human Eyes, Geometric Methods Compute. Vision, vol. 1570, pp.214-226, 1991. Y. Zhu, T. Tan, and Y. Wang, Iris Image Acquisition System, Chinese Patent Application, No.99217063.X, 1999. Y. Zhu, T. Tan, and Y. Wang, Biometric Personal Identification System Based on Iris Pattern, Chinese Patent Application, No. 9911025.6, 1999. Chan F.Lam and David Kamins. Signature recognition through spectral analysis. Pattern Recognition Anil K Jain,Biometric Authentication: How Do I Know Who You Are, Proc.on Advances Pattern Recognition, pp.9-10, 2003. Web links:

http://www.iridiantech.com/