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."
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?
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
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?
... that thing is mamoth with 5,120 processors.
...
... ramble ramble ...
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
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.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
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
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