Slashdot Mirror


SGI Introduces World's Densest Server

Twirlip of the Mists writes "Today SGI announced the Origin 3900 server, the world's densest computer. How dense? How about 16 MIPS R14000A processors and 32 GB of RAM in a 4-rack-unit 'superbrick,' for a grand total of 128 processors and 256 GB of RAM in a single rack. That makes the new machine the densest single-system-image computer in the world; it's even denser than most blade systems. Just for fun, the server also includes a whole bunch of 64-bit, 133 MHz PCI-X slots (from 11 up to hundreds and hundreds, depending on configuration). There's coverage of the announcement on ZDNet, CNET, and InfoWorld, as well as on SGI's own site."

13 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. SGI's Gettin' Some by supergumby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good to see a non-Intel compatible platform release something interesting these days. What we need is faster, cheaper hardware that makes sense!

    1. Re:SGI's Gettin' Some by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What we need is faster, cheaper hardware that makes sense!

      The 128-processor Origin 3900 lists for $2.9 million. There's nothing "cheaper" about this. Faster, yeah; this is one of-- not "the," but one of-- the fastest computers in the world. And it's the densest. But it's nowhere near cheap.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:SGI's Gettin' Some by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cray-Research basically went under when the Cray-3 contract was axed.

      Cray has already taken more than $25 million in orders for the X1, a computer that hasn't even been built yet. Cray has had a rough time, but they're doing just fine.

      lets say that MOSIX and 10Gig ethernet advances

      What if it does? Bandwidth between nodes isn't as big a problem as latency in that case. No matter how fast-- in terms of bits per second-- your network transport is, you're always going to have latencies that are a million times higher than node-to-node latencies inside a NUMA system like the Origin. Seriously, a million times; we're talking milliseconds versus nanoseconds here. Your dismissal of single-system-image designs in favor of cluster designs shows a distinct lack of vision on your part, I'm afraid.

      then will 2.9m for a machine still seem justified ?

      If you set up the hypothetical situation such that the less-expensive system does everything that the more-expensive system can do, then no, of course the more-expensive system isn't justifable. But that's not reality. SGI can deliver 1,024-processor systems right now. You can call them up and place and order for a 512-processor system right out of their main price list. (Bigger systems are special deals, but the 512-processor configuration has its own part number, just like a workstation or a monitor.)

      Two or three years from now, when everything you just described is possible, let's see what SGI has in its price book and revisit the question. I imagine the answer then will be the same as the answer now, just with the facts ratched up a few notches. "Yeah," you'll say, "SGI can deliver 8 kiloprocessors for $3 million, but is it justified? A 2 kilonode wintel cluster is cheaper...."

      --

      I write in my journal
  2. Is it such a good new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I remember eading an article on Slashdot some time ago on how processors were becoming so hot that at the current trend, they would be hotter than nuclear reactors by 2025... Maybe it's time to focus less on "denser and denser, more gigaflops per cube centimeters" and more on lessening heat dissipation...

  3. Blade/Origin Comparison by zmalone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Commenting on how the new Origin systems are denser then any other single image system, and then comparing them to the current blade fad to make your point is a bit silly. Blades are seperate machines (unless they are Sun, in which case they are the current desktop line), this system is a single machine. I'm not entirely certain about this density claim either, doesn't Sun fit 128 processors in a rack with the Fire 15ks?

  4. Re:no different... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it's not. This is a single-system-image server. The 128-processor rack boots a single kernel. (In fact, you can connect four 128-p racks together to make a 512-p system, and larger systems than that are supported under special contract to SGI. I believe NASA Ames has a 1,024-p.)

    The four-processor, 1-unit server you talked about stops there: at four processors. You can't compare that to a system that scales to be 256 times that size.

    --

    I write in my journal
  5. Density by flops? by LoudMusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about we calculate density by flops or something else useful. I mean, how difficult would it be to cram a butt load of Pentiums in a rack? Yeah well how much calculation can they do?

    Lets cruise on over to the Top 500 and use their handy dandy html list to view 'most powerful chip'. This unfortunately requires a little calc work because they failed to include this number in their table.

    #1 NEC Earth-Simulator 35,860.00 GFlops using 5,120 Processors -- WOW!

    But that's only 7 GFlops per processor ... that thing is mamoth with 5,120 processors.

    Now lets look at a little different design ...

    #14 Hitachi SR8000-F1/168 1,653.00 GFlops using 168 Processors -- Hot DAMN!!

    This is more like it. They're pulling 9.84 GFlops per processor. With their architecture they could pull off the Earth-Simulator's GFlop rate with 3,645 processors - That's 28% less computer doing the same amount of work. Which means if the Earth-Simulator had been constructed with Hitachi's hardware, they could have been pulling 50,380 GFlops in the same cubic footage.

    Now this is all rambling that assumes that the processors are similar in size. Which probably isn't true. But they are also getting more power out of less hardware, and it is rare that THAT isn't a bonus. ... ramble ramble ...

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  6. Re:Pointless in most datacenters by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right but wrong. The target market for this system is definitely government and university HPC labs, but those labs are definitely short of floor space. Putting more MIPS per floor tile is an important advancement.

    --

    I write in my journal
  7. Delaying the inevitable? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this just delaying the death of SGI or signaling a new focus and niche for the company? I loved the Indy stations back in college and the O2's were amazing in their time, but most of the work those systems could do can now be done on comodity hardware, so SGI had to find a new reason to exist. Whether this system is enough to keep the grim reaper away is left to be seen.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Delaying the inevitable? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't believe this got moderated as "insightful." Crap like Indys and O2s is what put SGI in a bad place to begin with. SGI always had fantastic graphics technology and a kick-ass operating system. When they tried to sell low-end workstations-- Indys and O2s running IRIX, and all the stupid stuff with Intel machines running NT and Linux-- their net revenues went into the toilet. SGI's biggest sources of revenue have always been scientific and technical computing customers, the government, and the petrochemical/geological industries. It's when SGI de-focuses to talk about stuff like PCs with fancy cases or video servers or data mining software that they start to lose their way.

      This isn't SGI finding a new reason to exist. This is SGI going back to what has always been one of its best reasons to exist. Over time, SGI's technical lead in graphics has diminished, fueled primarily by (believe it or not) home computer games. But even now, nobody can touch SGI for high-performance scalable servers like the 3900.

      --

      I write in my journal
  8. Not so hot by leeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having the chance to work with a similar machine, I can tell you that the disk arrays (in general) will generate much more heat that the CPU bricks. The CPU bricks a very well ventilated. Hard disks RAIDS (in general) are not so well ventilated and will generate a lot of heat. Maybe they tolerate higher temperature, I don't know.. But it's good though, it keeps a part of the server room a bit warmer when you get too cold :)

    We also have a Linux rack and this will get pretty hot too. We had to move the Linux rack next to the A/C blower. I can't really say about other vendors but SGI is doing a good job at cooling their stuff.

    --
    -- Leeeter than leet
  9. not that impressed... by computer_chacham · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Compare this to the 1U Hammer racks that are coming out http://www.newisys.com/NewisysDataSheet.pdf
    for a 42U rack, you have 84 processors, with each processor being about two and a half times faster, SPECint2000 1202 vs. 483 and SPECfp2000 1170 vs. 495, with the Hammers in 32bit mode. Each 1U Hammer rack can contain up to 16 GB of memory, which gives a total of 672 GB of total RAM, compared to the 256GB of the Origin 3900. I also wouldn't be surprised if a 42U rack of Hammers ended up costing more like $300,000 than $3,000,000

  10. Re:Here's what you're missing by virtual_mps · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There are entire classes of problems which cannot be solved fast enough on clusters, but only on single-image systems. Anything that cannot be made into a parallel algorithm falls into that category.


    Of course, anything that cannot be made into a parallel algorithm isn't going to use more than one processor out of a 512p machine, single system image or not. That's not a target audience for this machine.