Talk:Cisco Unified Computing System

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Computing

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Incorrect information: "B-Series blade servers can accommodate a maximum of 12 DIMMS for up to 192 GB of RAM, while the C-Series has a much larger capacity at 64 DIMMS for a maximum of 1 TB of RAM. In terms of number of servers per system, however, the roles are reversed; the B-Series tops out at 320 servers per system while the C-Series can only accommodate 160." This is all subject to change. The UCS B440 (a B-Series blade server) can run 32 DDR3 DIMMs for 256GB of ram if 8 GB DIMMs are used. The B200 - 384GB with 8GB DIMMS. (Citation: [| Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS)] Chapter 5) Since this information is out of date, and in flux, I would just edit it to say that the B series are blade servers, and the C series are rack servers. Maybe something about the Catalina chipset (ASICs patented to Nuova systems, that was taken over by Cisco in 2008)

Agreed, please use past tense and citations with precise dates. Actually detailed product info will always be more accurate directly from the vendor, so just keep to the highlights. W Nowicki (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Networking

Confusing information: "The 6100 may connect to multiple B-series server chassis, uniting them into a single management ___domain." The 6100s are used with B and C series.

Virtualization

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this article focuses too much on VMWare. This isn't an article on vSphere.50.194.198.249 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply