Slashdot Mirror


SGI Installs First Itanium Cluster At OSC

Troy Baer writes: "SGI and the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC) have announced the installation of the first cluster using Itanium processors. The system consists of 73 SGI 750 nodes, each with two Itanium 733MHz procs and 4GB of memory, connected by Myrinet 2000 and Ethernet. Software includes Linux/ia64, SGI's ia64 compiler suite, MPICH/ch_gm, OpenPBS, and Maui Scheduler."

10 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. 5.86 Gflops per processor by Perdo · · Score: 5, Informative
    5.86 Gflops per processor (We can assume marketing fud value) at $3,300 Compared to the Athlon 1.4 with a peak of 1.37 Gflops (benched value) for $145. Keep in mind the nifty PCI card that has 4 G4 processors on it. That would make for 92 processors at 1Gflop each in just one box.

    Unfortunately, this seems to mark Intel's latest attempt to push an overpriced, substandard product at us. The P4 was crippled from the begining and is only just now begining to show any promise. The PIII at 1.13 and 1.2 Ghz is finally available 8 months after the recall of their failed 1.13 processor. Even their purchase of Alpha from compaq seems to be just stock propping because the original creators of the alpha are now working for AMD. The reason Compaq was willing to sell in the first place is the second generation alpha has been subjected to over three years of delays because they simply did not have the engineering talent to improve a ten year old design.

    The talented engineeers are working for AMD, built the athlon and are working on the sledgehammer.

    Before anyone jumps to Intel's defence, like they need defending as long as they are the 800 pound gorilla, keep this in mind:

    Craig Barret warned "This was a year of record annual revenue and earnings; yet, slowing economic conditions impacted fourth quarter growth and are causing near-termuncertainty,". He was faced with AMD going from 10% market share to 34% market share in a year. Wall street took barret's word as gospel that the entire market was in decline and not just Intel's market share. Intel is a market bellwether so we all got laid off. Just so Intel would not have to admit that AMD had a better product. Nasty business. Intel does not have a great product and they are reckless with their power.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  2. Re:SGI Sucks ( read on ) by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What went wrong?

    I know this is a rhetorical question, but having once spent a lot of time thinking about how to advise them before and during their fall, I'll give you my analysis. Some of this I saw at the time, some aspects I only saw too late. Learn from their mistakes.

    Here's what went wrong:

    • SGI succumbed to the Innovator's Dilemna. Unwilling to canibalize their high-end graphics, they refused to enter the PC 3D graphics space and left it open for 40+ hungry competitors. Many of their engineers left for said competitors when it was clear SGI was going nowhere. (Jim Clark recognized the dilemna in 1992-1994 by the way and jumped ship himself, a harbinger of things to come.) In fairness, its hard to canabalize a 1-2 billion dollar workstation graphics market in hopes of winning a 50-200 million dollar 3D PC graphics one.
    • SGI refused to go to NT early on when they would have had leverage in making the move that could have forced/encouraged MS to adopt OpenGL exclusively for 3D. Instead, they said no to NT for too long, and when they said yes, it was a me-too decision that was later partially reversed in favor of Linux. Rather than recognizing and admitting they'd lost the war and pursuing the best possible terms, they chose, either conciously or through inaction, the "go down fighting, maybe we can still win" route.
    • SGI's bread and butter midrange workstation 3D graphics was prone to "good enough" copying by competitors, Sun and HP. SGI's engineers spent a lot of time focusing on developing unique high-performance texture mapping serving 2% of their market (the entertainment sector) rather than on improving geometry engine performance further for the benefit of the biggest 40+% market (CAD).
    • SGI's choice of a strategic response to PCs was poor: "We'll have highly differentiated systems" (the O2). Unfortunately, the differentiation (UMA, texture mapping, imaging, system bus architecture) was largely in areas that didn't add much value to their largest segments of customers. They built not what most of their customers wanted, but what the "cool" customers wanted. What most of their customers wanted was lower prices- that's what most of them ended up going to when dumping SGI.
    • SGI engineers were late. Whether through lack of focus/discipline, resistance to "impossible" marketing schedules (that turned out to be necessary), choice of agressive cutting-edge/bleeding-edge component technologies that proved hard to debug, whatever. Your pick. Key products in the timeframe you mentioned were late, late, late. The midrange IMPACT graphics were announced June 95 as shipping but in reality didn't really ship for another 6 months, more or less. (In the meantime, Wall Street lost faith in the company as a momentum stock and SGI stock price dropped from its alltime high of 45 down to mid-20s.) Subsequent products also had a tendency of being late (O2, a year later than needed, Visual PC was late, etc.) SGI engineering exhibited a lack of discipline when instead they needed increased focus to adjust from product design cycles of 4 years (traditional workstation graphics) to 6 months (90s PC graphics). In their defense, this wouldn't have been easy. But at least some there knew about this. Which brings us to the last problem I'll go into.
    • Arrogance. SGI was arrogant. No PC could beat us. We'll always stay ahead. Sun? HP? Ha! Yeah, we can do low-price graphics, look at Nintendo-64; see a PC beat that! etc, etc. Not everyone at SGI there was, but a heck of a lot were.
    --LP

    P.S. I didn't even get into their server strategy, Cray, and later events. Another time perhaps.

  3. SGI has been faithful at least by HerrGlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems the ones who have been faithful to their commitment to Linux are SGI and IBM. The others have tried it and then decided it was not worth the effort to reach such a small segment of the population.

    I'm glad there are still big players in the Linux field, though, it helps forward the cause and the OS and lets people know there IS an alternative. By all means, SUN and other, keep your propriatary stuff available and have that as the default, but allow people the option to choose another OS if they so desire.

    DanH

    --
    Cav Pilot's Reference Page
    UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
  4. IA64s are kickass... by Telek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had an opportunity to work on them about a year ago (the first one we received was a doorstop, literally... The sucker weighed 73 pounds in it's shipping package (I'm NOT KIDDING... They reeled the box in on a trolly, and I laughed at the guy cuz it looked small enough to carry, but then I tried to pick it up...) and didn't even boot, but intel shiped them with 2GB of ram and a kickass SCSI system, so let's just say that my desktop became a SWEEEEEET machine.), but once we got ones that did work, they were sweet machines. I was porting bigint libraries for encryption that I had hand-coded in assembly for the x86 platform, and going from 8 general purpose registers with 1 predicate register (i.e. only 1 carry flag) to having 128 general purpose registers, and 63 predicate registers was a GODSENT.. AMAZING... For anyone who's coded math routines in assembly, you know how much of a PITA it is having only one carry register. This was simply amazing. I could do 1024-bit RSA purely in registers, no memory access outside of the initial read of the data and the final write. Needless to say it flew. It was interesting because literally you wouldn't need a hardware crypto card if you have an Itanium system. So basically Intel really put in a lot of good effort into designing this new platform to avoid the pitfalls of the problems that they experienced with their x86 architechture.

    The machines also had 4GB of ram, so it was fun to do:

    char * myStr = (char *)malloc(-1);

    and have it succeed! (that's a 4GB memory allocation)

    --

    If God gave us curiosity
  5. a dialogue by the_tsi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdotter: I wish to complain about
    this company what I read about not half an
    hour ago on this very website.
    Me: Oh yes, the, uh, the Workstation manufacturer...What's,uh...What's
    wrong with it?
    S: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. it's dead,
    that's what's wrong with it!
    M: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
    S: Look, matey, I know a dead company when I see one, and
    I'm looking at one right now.
    M: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable company,
    the SGI, idn'it, ay? Powerfull CPUs!
    S: The CPUs don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
    M: Nononono, no, no! It's resting!
    S: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
    (shouting)
    'Ello, Mister Bob Bishop! I've got a lovely fresh government
    contract for you if you show...
    M: There, it moved!
    S: No, it didn't, that was you faking a press release!
    M: I never!!
    S: Yes, you did!
    M: I never, never did anything...
    S: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO SGI!!!!!
    Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine
    o'clock alarm call!

    See, guys, I told you they still had life left! :)

    -Chris

  6. Not a bad deal by wirefarm · · Score: 4, Funny

    "... The old system will be divided into smaller clusters and cascaded to faculty ...

    "Damn. I asked for an iMac, but got this stupid Linux cluster instead!"

    ;^)

    Cheers,
    Jim in Tokyo

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  7. SGI Sucks ( read on ) by green+pizza · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prepare to lose all karma...

    SGI sucks.

    Most of their hardware is great, as is most of their software. But their head is completely up their ass these days.

    Stagnant desktop machines. Impressive but overpriced big iron. OEM PCs. And a terrible logo. What went wrong? Where to begin??

    Once upon a time there was a company called Silicon Graphics. They got their start by making wickedly powerful terminals to provide 2D and 3D graphical front end to massive minicomputers and supercomputers. Mind you this was two years before Apple introduced the Macintosh and Xerox was still playing with the underpowered Star. Shortly there after they began selling a line of large rackmount, standalone graphical computers that used multiple large boards covered with cpus, fast ram, and other goodies to churn out decent primitive 3D in real time using the GL framework (later called IRISgl, which eventually became OpenGL). This was about the time your dad upgraded from a C64 to a IBM XT.

    Fast forward to 1995. You and I were probably playing with a Pentium 100 and looking forward to the rumored 3Dfx Voodoo card. In that same year, SGI upgraded their Onxy graphical supercomputers to InfinteReality graphics... providing performance on par with a Geforce 256. Except the IR could handle 64 MB of dedicated texture ram and 320 MB of frame buffer. Three IR "pipes" could be installed in a single system, and each pipe could even be broken down to multiple channels. IR allowed the world of graphical simulation to finally approach photorealistic quality with multiple projectors / monitors providing a wrap-around display (keep in mind that much of this was available on a limited scale 1991 with SGI's RealityEngine pipes). Both the Onyx and SGI's non graphical server, the Challenge, received a CPU upgrade. Up to 24 MIPS R10000 CPUs running at 195 MHz (each providing 390 MFLOPS + 390 MIPS) could be installed in the Onyx. The Challenge could take up to 36. SGI's flagship desktop machine, the Indigo2, received upgrades as well. The top of the line model had an R10K/195 CPU, up to 640 MB of interleaved ram, two channels of SCSI, and Maximum Impact graphics (4 MB of dedicated texture ram, 27 MB of framebuffer, and performance somewhere around that of the TNT2).

    SGI's machines continued to get better. Indigo2 was replaced with the Octane. Onyx and Challenge were replaced with the Onyx2 and Origin, and later with the Onyx 3000 and Origin 3000.

    Here we are in the middle of 2001. SiliconGraphics has become "sgi" with a NYSE stock price below $1. Their O2 desktop machine hasn't changed much since 1996, and aside from the new gfx card and faster CPUs, the Octane2 isn't a whole lot different than the original Octane in 1997. Onyx 3000 uses updated graphics based on the original IR from 1995. Perhaps the only noteworthy change has been the architecture of the new Onyx and Origin. Both can scale as a single machine to 512 CPUs with 1 Terabyte of RAM. Many of these massive machines can be clustered together for even more power... at an insane cost.

    The company that brought us 3D on the desktop has pretty much come to a halt. Their desktop machines haven't change much in almost 5 years. Their big iron is impressive, but expensive as all hell. And their PCs... where to begin on the PCs... They tried making what could have been the coolest pair of PCs of all time. But due to delays and driver issues, the machines ended up being overpriced, nonupgradable ho-hum boxes. Pretty soon they hit the other end of the spectrum with generic OEM PCs. And now this, the "SGI 750" Itanium. A box that is identical to that which is being sold by HP and Dell. The only thing SGI about it is the logo. We're not even dealing with the same SGI. This new "sgi" couldn't have possibly come from the same roots as the old, grand, SiliconGraphics.

    I can't help but wonder what the old SiliconGraphics would be doing today. Like another poster pointed out, the Octane would probably have an ever faster architecture, better graphics, and probably 4x the CPU power. This new linux cluster would probably be based on much better machines and using something better than Myrinet (which is limited by the 66MHz/64bit PCI bus the card sits in). The old SGI would have made a complete fire breather, not some OEM stack that anyone could build themselves. The old SGI would have the cube logo *and* rightfully wear it.

    When I look inside my old, used Indigo2 from 1995 what do I see? I see its 750 watt power supply. I see not a graphics card, but *three* massive cards working together and connected to the power supply via a thick jumper cable. I see engineering at its best. I see a product that pushed the limits of silicon and interconnects. I see something that was worth its $50,000 pricetag. I see something that was indeed an order of magnitude more powerful than anything else on the desktop.

    When I look at the current SGI desktop machines, I see something I can buy for less at Best Buy.

    I recently saw a demonstration of the Onyx 3000. One of the demos was a visualization app used by an automobile maker. The app showed a few different cars in full detail across three screens (each 1280x1024) in a panoramic configuration at a sustained, locked 75 Hz + 75 FPS. The cars had complete reflection features that interacted right down to the metallic flecks in the paint. The detail was right down to the 3D textures that made up the subtle surface of the dash plastics and the seat leather. It was truly photorealistic. I've seen the Geforce 3 demos, they were nowhere near as impressive as the car demo.

    Another demonstration showed the Onyx's power at loading textures. The machine they had was connected to several RAIDs containing over 500 GB of satellite and aerial photos. On the same three screens and in the same 75 Hz + 75 FPS were able to zoom down to a national park, pan across to another state, and zoom back out to planet Earth floating in space. All in real time. The RAIDs were clattering so loud I could hardly hear the man giving the demonstration. The Onyx never missed a beat.

    If the old SGI was here today, we'd have that kind of power on the desktop. And it would cost $50,000 and consume 750 watts. Not $500,000 and 9,000 watts.

    And we wouldn't have a Myrinet connected stack of Itanium PCs. We'd have something a whole hellofa lot better.

    [end rant]

  8. it's worse than that... by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're thinking of "Rocket" Rick Belluzzo, former CEO of SGI. He was responsible for putting MIPS/IRIX on hold, courting the Wintel crowd, and the "sgi" logo. He successfully put SGI in a steep nosedive they'll probably never recover from.

    Where is Mr. Belluzzo today?

    Hold on to your hat...

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/belluzzo/d efault.asp

  9. 15 years for MicroSoft to 64 bits? by peter303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It took MS 15 years to have a full 32-bit OS
    after those chips came out. Hope they are faster
    this time. 32 bit NT on an Itanium would be a waste.

    SGI and SUN have had full 64 bit OS for 7 & 5
    years. Yes, there are bugs to shake out in the
    beginning. OF course Bill & Steve will announce
    they are "just about to ship" for years until
    they do.

  10. Re:Wrong logo, Wrong idea by InsaneGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would you consider the following link new & cool???

    http://oss.sgi.com/projects/linux-scalability/do wn load/mips128.out

    It's a link to a running *single image* (i.e. not a beowulf cluster) 128 proc Linux system on a mips box. When was the last time you saw Dell, HP, Gateway, do that with a Linux system? This little cluster in the post is not where SGI is going with their systems (as you said anybody can do that) but are moving with Intel numa with high speed numalink interconnects that are much faster than standard Myranet (their cross bar is in the gigaBYTES).

    The real interesting part that I see (if they can live long enough for Intel to release Mercede) is the system partitioning and it's modularization. Need 2 more procs for your database but all your CPU slots are full, well plug in another "C brick", you won't have to worry about running out of CPU slots in your frame, everything is a component, you won't have to do another fork lift upgrade. Also with their partitioning I can purchase a 100 proc system, partition it into twenty 5 proc systems all within the same frame I don't have to pay for all of the overhead for 20 different frames and space for expansion in 20 of those frames, because all I need to do is plug in another "C brick" and give two of the boxes two more CPU's without ever having to have bought the headroom to begin with.

    Whoa getting a bit long, SGI really has some cool stuff going on right now. If they could only market themselves out of a paper bag they wouldn't be in the bled-dry situation they are in. Personally I think the best thing for them would be to be bought by someone with big pockets who can market a product properly.