Proxmox and a full rack of Supermicro gear would not be as sophisticated, but end result is pretty much the same, with I imagine far far better bang for buck.
I like it, but it doesn't seem like a big deal or revolutionary in any way.
When it breaks, good luck!
You're no worse-off with Oxide from that perspective. Their open source firmware means that thr opportunity to pay somebody else to support you at least exists.
Even small shops can use bad experience as leverage for credits and discounts, especially if the vendor has account managers. This is one of the (few) benefits of having a human involved in invoicing vs. self-serve.
> when any of that breaks, good luck!
The premise is that you don't need luck, you can call Oxide. As you said, they wrote all of it, so they own all the interaction so they can diagnose all of it.
When I call Dell with a problem between my OS filesystem and the bus and the hardware RAID, there's at least three vendors involved there so Dell doesn't actually employ anyone that knows all of it so they can't fix it.
Sure, Oxide now needs to deliver on that support promise but at least they are uniquely positioned to be able to do it.
I think the question is how well they can do the management plane. Dealing with the "quirks" of a bunch of grey box supermicro stuff is always painful in one way or another. The drop shipped, pre-cabled cab setups are definitely nice but that's only a part of what Oxide is doing here. No cables and their own integrated switching sounds nice too (stuff from the big vendors like UCS is closer to this ballpark but also probably closer to the cost too).
I suspect cooling and rack density could be better in the Oxide solution too, not having to conform to the standards might afford them some possibilities (although that's just a guess, and even if they do improve there these may not be the bottlenecks for many).
Docs:
* https://docs.oxide.computer/api/guides/responses
See perhaps "This repo houses the work-in-progress Oxide Rack control plane."
My experience with the likes of Dell is that they'll deliver it but they won't support it.
Sure, there's a support contract. And they try. But while they sell a box that says Dell, the innards are a hodgepodge of stuff from other places. So when certain firmware doesn't work with something else, they actually can't help because they don't own it, they're just a reseller.
On-prem buyers are doing cost reduction and cost reduction targets things like, as one example, the crazy cost of GPU servers on the CSPs. Your run of the mill stuff is very hard to cost reduce.
You can see their sort of lack of getting it by using Tofino2 as their switch. That’s just a very bad choice that was almost certainly chosen for bad reasons.
The cost case only works for GPU heavy workloads which this isn’t - wrong chassis, wrong network, etc.
Tofino2 is the wrong choice because even when they made that choice it would have been clear that it’s doa. Intel networking has not been a success center in, well, ever. That’s a selection that could only have been made for nerd reasons and not sensible business goals alignment or risk mitigation.
When you make an integrated solution you’d better be the best or close to the best at everything. This does not seem to be the best at anything. I will grant that it is elegant and largely nicer than the hyper converged story from other vendors but in practical terms this is the 2000s era rack scale VxBlock from Cisco or whatever Dell or HPE package today. Marginally better blade server is not a business.
They also make a big deal and have focused on things no one who actually builds data center pods cares about.
I actually hope they get bought by Dell or HPE or SuperMicro. Those companies could fix what’s wrong here and benefit a lot from the attention to detail and elegance on display.
