Linux Desktop Clustering - Pick Your Pricerange

crashlight writes: "A Linux cluster on the desktop--Rocket Calc just announced their 8-processor "personal" cluster in a mid-tower-sized box. Starting at $4500, you get 8 Celeron 800MHz processors, each with 256MB RAM and a 100Mbps ethernet connection. The box also has an integrated 100Mbps switch. Plus it's sexy." Perhaps less sexy, but for a lot less money, you can also run a cluster of Linux (virtual) machines on your desktop on middle-of-the-road hardware. See this followup on Grant Gross's recent piece on Virtual Machines over at Newsforge.

Comments

Virtual macines???

[TheAwfulTruth]

The purpose of running clusters is to increase processing power and/or fail-safety. How is running 8 virtual machines in any way a "less sexy" version of an 8 CPU cluster?

Re:Virtual macines???

[PD]

Maybe I want to develop software for a Beowulf cluster, but either I don't have a cluster of my own, or I just want to write the software, not run it in production. Either way, a set of 8 virtual processors would be good enough for the job.

Re:Virtual macines???

[PD]

I just thought of something else. I have never used a Beowulf cluster, so maybe I'm completely wrong, but virtual machines could make a Beowulf more easily upgradeable. The idea is that you'd make a cluster with a whole bunch of virtual machines, say 1024. The cluster is fixed at that size for all the software that runs. But in reality, you've got 32 processors actually running. When you upgrade the cluster to 64, you don't need to reconfigure any of the software that runs on the cluster, because they all assume that you've got 1024 processors. But, you get a performance increase because there's now more physical processors. As I said before, I don't know much about clusters. I imagine that somebody who really does know will quickly either confirm what I said or reduce my idea to a pile of stinking rubble.

Re:Virtual macines???

[cweber]

You're mostly off the mark, I'm afraid. Most software that uses a cluster runs through MPI or simply through scripts. Both mechanisms allow for easy adjustment in the number of nodes/CPUs you use.

Many large compute problems are embarassingly parallel, i.e. the same calculation needs to be repeated with slightly different input parameters. There's basically no interprocess communication, just a little forethought about filenaming conventions, total disk and memory usage, etc.
Execution of such tasks reduces essentially to a simple loop:
foreach parameter_set
rsh nodeN myprog outfileM
end

For those programs that actually run a single instance of the code on several CPUs, you have to be acutely aware of how many nodes you use. Your code has its own limits on how well it scales to multiple CPUs, and your cluster imposes limits on how well (in terms of latency and bandwidth) nodes can communicate. Very few codes in this world scale well beyond 64 CPUs, especially not on run-of-the-mill clusters with plain ethernet interconnects. Fortunately, it is trivial to readjust the number of nodes used for each invocation of the code.

Lastly, virtual nodes cannot easily simulate the behavior of real nodes. Again, it's the interconnect latency and bandwidth. When it comes to supercomputing, only trust what you have run and measured on a real life setup with your own code and input data.

Wow... what a markup!

[eaglej]

Yeah, it's a nice compact little box... But they're pulling in a phat few g's on each box. I'll build my own, thank you very much.

Why is Timothy badmouthing...

[SpookComix]

...the articles he posts? Tim, baby, if you don't like or agree with the article, either don't post it or keep your opinion to yourself.

I know I'll get modded down for this, but here's an example:

Posted by timothy on Tuesday January 22, @02:45PM
JackBlack tells us about the "unbelievable deal you can get at KMart on all their overstocked computers and periphials! You won't believe the kind of prices on these things! I don't know about you people, but I'd rather swallow Draino than buy boxen from Big K! But, shit, whatever, I guess.

Timothy is his own conflict of interest.

What is happening to Slashdot these days?

--SC

under engineered.

[azephrahel]

I'm sorry, but for that price this is way under engineered. The origonal bewulf cluster was made with components on par, for the day, as the celeron modle of the redstone, for far less. If your going to spend the time and money building and marketing systems like this, they could have done a better job. They suck mobos in a big case and eth linked them togeather. Call me crazy but I think for that much money you could get a small backplane, 8 industrial PC's (powerpc/copermine/whatever on a pci card each w/its own memory) toss em in and spend the rest of your "engineering" budget, making a patch to the kernel for reliable communication over the bus, instead of slow eth connections.

besides with the speed advantages shared memory brings to multiprocessing a quad xenon would probably outpreform this.. deffinately a quad proc ultrasparc but those are pricey even used...

Re:under engineered.

[benedict]

Sure, you could build it yourself, and your
hardware cost would be lower.

But what about the cost of your time, in terms of
dealing with vendors, putting machines together,
testing them, integrating them, and testing again?

I'm guessing these machines come with support, too,
though I can't tell because their web site is
Slashdotted.

Terrasoft, briQs, PPC, 4-8 nodes...

[tcyun]

I saw a quick demo of a multi-noded briQ (by Terrasoft Solutions) at SC2001 a few months ago and was very impressed. The ability to leverage the power of the PPC in vast numbers (and in a very small form factor) was incredible. I wonder how these would do in a head to head competition?

They offer a 4-8 node tower running 500 MHz G3 or G4 CPUs and drawing "roughly 240 watts per 8 nodes (less than a dual-processor Pentium-based system)." Quite impressive.

only 100mbps?

[Restil]

The primary disadvantage of clustering is the network bottleneck. You lose out because even 100mbps is only a small fraction of what the pci bus of even low end pentium systems are able to handle. At LEAST go with gigabit ethernet so you can push over 100 megs per second between processors. This will greatly increase the usefulness of an integrated cluster by decreasing the one primary disadvantage.

Also a bit pricey, but there would be some cost advantage in reduced footprint for some environments.

-Restil

Re:only 100mbps?

[Lumpy]

Yes start here

http://linux-ha.org/comm/

this is used in the linux HA system extensively. Xenix and Unix has it also.. No version of NT has this ability nor any Microsoft product. Maybe someone has written a driver for NT4.0 but I doubt it.

Clustering under VM is....pretty dumb

[CDWert]

Clustering under vserver scheme is pretty dumb, if it was in fact meant to be serious.

vservers assume that a machine has resources avaiable and that no one instance is consuming 100% of the systems resources. Application built for utilization under a cluster would most likey CONSUME 100% quickly and easily, otherwise why run them under a cluster in the first place ????

I do like their monitor applet, its pretty coll for basic cluster managment/monitoring.

At the same time all you people complaining about price...lets see

800mhz cele w256 meg each MB, NIC and whatever storage, lets say on the cheap $300 each

4 350 Watt PS $100

Ok a really cool case and PS

Time to load software, lets say weve done it before and it take 8 hours

Physical Assembly and testing 5 hours

My bill rate and personal time is worth 120/hr
$1560
Hardware $2400
Power Supply $ 100
Mildy cool case$ 100

THAT COMES TO 4160, Hell, add to that I dont have to build the SOB AND it comes under warranty , you betch you A** Id buy one of these

PLEASE think before you gripe about prices...
Looks like a deal to me ....

PS, Kernel version is 2.4.12 from what I saw on their link to products showing a screen shot Ayeee.....

Do-it-Yourself Cheap Clusters

[ChaoticCoyote]

I've been building my cluster from various remaindered/cast-off/refurbished machines I find. Computer Geeks is a good source.

Load balancing is frelling difficult, but I've been doing some solid parallel programming work that translates nicely to "real" clusters. I'd love to buy one of the Rocket Calc boxes -- but I can make a darned nice box for a lot less money with more processing power, if I'm willing to have cables and such all over the place.

The only real cluster-related problem I have is my lovely wife. She's one of those people who want things to "match" (so why in frell did she marry me?), and my "heterogenous" cluster just isn't very aesthetic. She just doesn't understand that the cluster's job is to compute, not to look pretty!

Then again, the Rocket Calc machines are attractive, and the color would go with the living room furniture...

Re: - 8 - 800MHz Celerons?

[qurob]

Although I'm joking, let's just take a look at some numbers, hypothetically speaking.

*borrowed from Tom's Hardware*

Linux Compiling Test

3.35 minutes for a Athlon XP 2000+
14.2 minutes for a Intel Celeron 800mhz

(now, here's where we stretch it)

Figure 1.7 minutes for a dual Athlon XP 2000+, 50% of the other time.

1.7 x 8 = 13.6 minutes


But, who really compiles with a cluster, really?

It'd still be faster....At least on a few benchmarks, and at least in theory