Slashdot Mirror
Macintosh Clustering
HiredMan writes: "Wired is running an article comparing the set-up and admin of Linux Beowulf clusters versus Mac based clusters. Slant of the article is that the Macs are easier to set-up, maintain and are more flexible. They note that the Linux "how to" manual is 230 pages while the corresponding Apple document is a 1 page PDF file. Dauger Research of former Appleseed fame is mentioned as well, of course. MacSlash is also covering the article. Let the on-topic (for once) Beowulf comments fly..."
What about cost? The cost (monetary, not time) of setting up a Linux cluster vs. a Mac cluster?
I think there are pros and cons of both clusters.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Finally Apple has hardware (powerful G4s and gigabit networking) and software (Mac OS X with preemtpion, protection, and a mature TCP/IP stack) that can really handle this sort of this.
I mean, this shit flew under Mac OS 9 and 400MHz G3s. Now we have Mac OS 10.1 and *dual* GHz machines with Gigabit ethernet. I can't imagine the power.
Wouldn't it be great if "plug and play" clustering became a reality. Say your office mates are out to lunch, or there's no one scheduled to use the school computer lab for the next hour and you want to render the effects for you three-hour iMovie, or you want to perform batch despeckle on a few hundred inages in Photoshop...
Nothing against Linux (I use it myself for a router), but a three-day setup for Beowulf clustering isn't a great deterrent if your calculations will be going for a month or two.
The type of clustering we're talking about here is something that could potentially appeal to the average SOHO or school, where they have five to 500 general-use Macs that have processor cycles to spare.
My question is this:
What would it involve to make Mac OS X and every program that runs natively on it to be able to take advantage of clustering right out of the box? If they can natively use multiprocessing, how much of a leap is it to patch the OS to natively support clustering?
Not only would this be great for techies, but it seems that this would be a great incentive to volume sales from Apple, where they now generally only get one or two Macs per site and the rest are Wintel workstations.
Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number...and make that a little louder?
or you can just use QNX, which does this nativly
I've just read the article, and added my grain of salt for bias, but most people here fail to realize that hardware costs are *very cheap* in relation to human costs. If what they say is true, it's worth the extra price on hardware.
"A good use for these [ancient] machines is to recycle them and one way to recycle is to create a bigger faster machine with them."
Not if your primary concern is getting the most FLOPS/$. Given that a brand-new $1000 computer will be something like 10 times as fast as your old ones, at the same power consumption, it doesn't take very long before your new computer pays for itself with the money you save in electricity not running 9 additional machines.
Consider:
150 Watts (low for a PC, probably average for a Mac) x $0.10/KWH x 24 Hr/day x 30 day/mo. x 10 machines = $108 per month. Your $1000 new machine will pay for itself in less than a year, from electrical savings alone.
Of course, this assumes dedicated compute servers running all the time. If you run the cluster software as a backgound task on desktop machines with many users, it's a different story.
If you have a scientific cluster, you don't want to be swapping things out. You don't want to take nodes offline because a video card fried. You want a system that is going to work.
I just priced out some Compaq Workstations yesterday and compared them to Apple Powermacs (Apple's workstations) for doing some OpenGL game development.
Apple Powermac with dual monitors and the upgrades we'd want... $5k. Compaq Workstations... $5k.
In the price-conscious area, Apple's iMacs/iBooks offer a good solution at a reasonable price. You can't compare Apple's workstation line with your "look ma, I built it myself" machine.
Apple does QC. You don't. You and your screw driver does not equal scientific requirements for reliable and predictable. If a node fries, you likely need to start over again. You can't just try to fix the damage.
Linux is great, OS X is great. They are very different UNIXes in different markets.
Alex
a 1 page pdf - I love that kind of stuff. I knocked up an Appleseed cluster at work just for the fun of it - took my about 20 minutes. If only I had an application... Clustering for the rest of us!
That was classic intercourse!
You apparantly don't work in the Prepress industry.
Making books, journals, and technical manuals takes a lot of Macs and a lot technicians to keep them running. We have 1 FT PC tech, 1 FT Unix Tech (Solaris Server), and 2 FT Mac techs. They need just as much TLC and repair as any other PC. Parts still fail and sad macs do rear their ugly head, but I guess with the sheer number of macs on site that we have to deal with them so often. They are, however, much easier to fix than the PCs... (Windows!, you're fired!... *sigh, I wish...)
Peace, Love, Games
"If the Mac gets a 2:1 performance advantage [but it costs twice as much as a PC], then the costs are equal."
Let Computer A have
Price = X
Performance = Y
Let Computer B have
Price = 2 X
Performance = 1/2 Y
The value of the computers IS NOT THE SAME.
Price is a one-time, up front cost.
But I get the benefit of performance for the life of the computer.
So if I can save $5 per hour on the more expensive computer (for example, if I can get more jobs done on the fast computer), and I work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, right there I save $5 x 40 x 50 = $10,000!
So saving $5 an hour is big bucks, and if the computer costs you twice as much, you still come out lots ahead. Saving even $1 an hour (a $2000 per year additional savings) will thus justify the more expensive Mac (at $3000) than the PC (at $1500)
i'm no econ guy, so maybe i've misused "savings" at times (instead of profit, or some other term of art).
The money saved by using a free OS is quickly eaten up by the salary of someone who has to make them run smoothly, which is damning if you're a small business with only a few employees, or in your case, a research group.
-
Linux has the endless instructions and most windows games I try install themselves just by putting the cd in.
What I find interesting is that someone creating, say, linux cluster server software, doesn't 'market' it using a kde install and administration tool. they could have a command line version as an add on for those that need it.
Ah yes, of course, what if you don't like kde, think it sucks and have fvwm instead. Yah, probs.
Its a difference in mentality.
Ease of install/setup vs some other way like just the way it use to be.
J
All of a week ago, I went to a talk where the man, Dauger himself, got up in front of a bunch of professors and explained why Mac clusters were the best thing in the world. The Wired article reads just like his presentation. He even had a copy of the Beowolf book at the presentation, and handed out copies of his one page manual. There is no comparison. His manual says, basically, to install Pooch and reap the rewards. I found something interesting. The USC cluster that was mentioned was our Language Center Lab (I'm a student at USC). They ran a fractal benchmark. The thing that I found interesting was this, and maybe someone can help me out here. The language lab doesn't have any dual processor machines, and doesn't have clock speeds anywhere near 1 GHz on any of the machines. It's my understanding that all of these Macs pump out about 1 GFLOP each. There are 56 machines in the lab. 1 GFLOP * 56 machines = 56 GFLOPS peak. Dauger's benchmark said the cluster was pumping out 223 GFLOPs. What am I missing?