Slashdot Mirror


10-TFlop Computer Built from Standard PC Parts

OrangeTide writes "Using PCI host adapters and Xeon processors, engineers at Lawrence Livermore National Labs have achieved 10-TFlops relatively cheaply. More information can be obtained from this article at EETimes." Lately, Linux seems to be the operating system of choice for new supercomputers, and this one's no different. It's cool to see big iron made cheaply.

247 comments

  1. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A commodity supercomputing cluster of these! (There has to be a better name for it, but I'm new here on Slashdot).

    1. Re:Imagine... by Virus1984 · · Score: 1

      It would be called "recursive clustering"

      --
      Don't forget to think different.
    2. Re:Imagine... by silichrome · · Score: 1

      Yawn Yawn!

  2. Supercomputer developed for... by jabex · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... which was specifically developed for running Doom III.

    --
    Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
    1. Re:Supercomputer developed for... by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 5, Funny
      ... Doom III

      Well, considering who's building it and running it, it's reasonable to guess that some form of doom will be simulated on it.

      --
      Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    2. Re:Supercomputer developed for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? .... +5 Scary

    3. Re:Supercomputer developed for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that....Frag frag frag...

  3. Howlingly funny? by noitalever · · Score: 3, Funny

    As long as it doesn't see a full moon, then it won't turn into...

    Beowulf!

    zzziiiippp!!!!(I love the smell of nomex in the morning!)

    1. Re:Howlingly funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? He was talking about a lot of computers. When you group lots of cheap computers together, you can make it perform like a supercomputer.

    2. Re:Howlingly funny? by lightweave · · Score: 1

      Hm. I have several 200MHz PCs standing in groups at home, but I never noticed them getting any faster.

    3. Re:Howlingly funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beowulf!

      I fail to see the fascination with Beowulf type clustering around here. Mosix! Mosix! Mosix!

    4. Re:Howlingly funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not both?

      There are benefits to combining various clustering methods.

  4. PCI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the PCI bus. I think its one of the coolest things ever. T_RDY anyone?

    1. Re:PCI by Wild+Bill+Hickock · · Score: 1

      you should send it some flowers then! that oughta keep it happy!

  5. imagine the future by ryochiji · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:
    >The 1- to 10-teraflops processing range is opening up a revolutionary capability for scientific applications

    In the not too distant future, that kind of processing power could very well be available in home PCs. Imagine what that would do to...well, I mean, dang it, what the heck will we do? Game frame rates can only go so high. Even realism of 3D graphics may have it's limits. Oh sure, we'll find something, but it's difficult for us to imagine now...

    1. Re:imagine the future by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 5, Funny
      In the not too distant future, that kind of processing power could very well be available in home PCs. [...] Oh sure, we'll find something [to do with it], but it's difficult for us to imagine now

      the Search for Extremely Trivial Iterations at home.

      --
      Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    2. Re:imagine the future by jericho4.0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I know exactly what I want to do with this kind of power. I want a massive FPS with a wicked frame rate. I want every object and material in that world to react with me. Newtownian physics down to grains of sand. Nothing short of movie quality realisim.I also want it to be massivly multiplayer. That will require some huge bandwidth and IO. Get on it Livermore!

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:imagine the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if you added watercooling and overclocked it a lot, it would run Longhorn.

    4. Re:imagine the future by mijok · · Score: 1

      I want that too! But there are more obstacles than processing power - how many designer man months do you need to create those levels. Drawing every single object in 3D? So some sort of way to do that faster will have to be invented before we get there. Maybe "AI artists", software able to make a 3D world of movie footage - don't know but I'm looking forward to that day since I'm sure it will come. And another thing: imagine the terabyte "storage whatever" those will be sold on since DVDs aren't enough for such amounts of data.

      --
      Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
    5. Re:imagine the future by Duds · · Score: 1

      But then some years ago it was actually difficult to imagine ghz.

      I remember a friends reaction on going from 386-25 to P100. He hadn't the faintest clue where the power was going to go.

      He soon found out :)

    6. Re:imagine the future by darkgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, it would be pretty cool to see a community that contributed to all the little details - kind of like a co-op world.

      then you'd have this huge pool of resources from which to draw - no time to model and texture that bookcase you need for a room? just go and buy it.

      grin, there could be auctions, just like real life, and since the 'structures' and objects you'd be buying have taken time and effort to create, and will have varying degrees of craftsmanship, you'd have a chance that it would actually turn into a market.

      the value, of course, would be that everybody would have to be able to use the resources, resell and develop their own parts of the world.

      we've seen something vaguely similar in the mod community since Doom (the original, kiddies), but it's not really there yet.

      --
      You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
    7. Re:imagine the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      i might be showing my age here, but you'd probably still get said sand kicked in your face

    8. Re:imagine the future by Orthanc_duo · · Score: 1

      Newtownian physics, hell no, that kind of powere you want to be working at the quantum level...

      Or alternativly just get a couple of extra keyboards (and hands) and play several games at once.

    9. Re:imagine the future by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny
      Oh sure, we'll find something, but it's difficult for us to imagine now...

      Come on; you know what we'll do with this; what we do with every major technological advance: new, more realistic, and more processor-intensive pr0n.

    10. Re:imagine the future by azzy · · Score: 0

      SPINE??? where did that come from! SNIPE!!! I meant SNIPE.. damn my fingers

    11. Re:imagine the future by rEWDBOi · · Score: 1

      Voice controlled holographic 3D environments..
      Holodeck, here I come.

    12. Re:imagine the future by BlueArchon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually there is... or was... I don't know. It's called Alphaworld. It's a huge multiuser VRML based world where anyone could claim some space and build something. Don't know if it exists anymore, used it years ago on my 486 with a 14.4k modem :) Google for it if you are intrested...

    13. Re:imagine the future by operagost · · Score: 1

      Where it always has gone, since 1994: Quake!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:imagine the future by NewbieV · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... and then we can give Slartibartfast the award for his lovely work on fjords.

      --


      "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
    15. Re:imagine the future by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2
      hahahahaha. That's would be true if it wasn't for my excellent mouse control.

      Good point. Good joke. Yes I'm looking for a total escape from reality, is that so bad?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    16. Re:imagine the future by shokk · · Score: 2

      I imagine that at some point we would have to have a library of publicly available models (open format, of course) that would allow for true object reuse.

      So, if someone spends time creating a vase for Sims Online v5, it should be available for a scene in Splinter Cell v22.

      Given a large enough amount of disk and large enough bandwidth someone could update their vase every now and then and the software will check and automatically update these objects to either 1) add new realism to the game/system or 2) screw everyone that loaded the new vase with a buggy vase that is updated moments later.

      This could then lead to uniquely crafted virtual objects that might be considered art and sought after like real art.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    17. Re:imagine the future by ModernGeek · · Score: 0

      In the future, windows will have so many fady menus, sounds, and animated question marks in the setup, so a 10 teraflop pc running Windows 2666 will be equal to linux on a 486.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    18. Re:imagine the future by certron · · Score: 2

      What if I wanted to put one of the Sims models into Splinter Cell? Maybe a Barney model...

      Good idea, though. This could be hooked with a voice system so you could request "Baroque Vase number 32" and then place it on a table using some nifty future interface device.

      Then again, we'll have to wait for the porn industry to find a way to make money for it before it really takes off. :-)

      --

      fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
      eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
    19. Re:imagine the future by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Computers will keep getting faster, and the code running on them will keep getting sloppier more bloated and running through more layers of abstraction, so we will just be using 10x as much cpu power to do the same thing.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  6. We use it! by e8johan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Were I work (I can't say where... I've signed papers...) we have replaced an SGI 'super computer' (or mini computer, whatever, a big number crunching beast of silicon!) with a Beowulf cluster. This not only gives us great scaleability, but also lots of FLOPS per dollar (or rather, krona :^P).

    1. Re:We use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know you "signed papers", but all McDonald's employees have to sign that application before they can start working. And just because you FLIPS a lot of burgers doesn't make you an expert on supercomputers.

    2. Re:We use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mini computers are the dinosaurs of old.

    3. Re:We use it! by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Were I work (I can't say where... I've signed papers...)

      Are you referring to this part of your CV?

      Gardening
      Juli 7 - 27 1986 i managed a group of tomato plants.

    4. Re:We use it! by e8johan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes! I used the cluster to compute the correct amount of water for each plant, considering cloudiness, temperature, time in direct sun light and how far each particular plant had grown. :)

    5. Re:We use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Were I work ..."

      what kind of a question is that? so fine you were work. why should we care about it?

    6. Re:We use it! by darkgreen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mini computers are the dinosaurs of old.

      Hey, wouldn't dinosaurs be the dinosaurs of old? Mini computers would be the dinosaurs of kinda recent. =)

      --
      You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
    7. Re:We use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      [...] to compute the correct amount of water for each plant, considering cloudiness, temperature, time in direct sun light and how far each particular plant had grown. :)
      It's a code, right? when you say tomato plants you really mean... mhh... nevermind, too early in the morning ;-)
  7. Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by joeflies · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then the world will finally see the 4000 Playstation 2's that Saddam used to build a supercomputer

    1. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by 7-Vodka · · Score: 4, Funny

      or maybe just one apple mac. Sitting all alone in a big empty room because saddam bought the marketing spiel.

      --

      Liberty.

    2. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by Kynde · · Score: 2

      Then the world will finally see the 4000 Playstation 2's that Saddam used to build a supercomputer

      I'm glad you got modded up, but it could've been "insightful" instead of "funny".

      Take Xbox for example, neat little box, equiped with P3 something, and quite cheap. Put linux on that and build a relatively cheap cluster out of those. Not that far fetched, if you ask me.

      Had these linux capable consoles emerged before 3D revolution the price comparison would've been even better.

      And what's best, M$ takes about $50 loss for each XBox sold.

      In any case, PC clusters are stepping on the toes of super computers big time. We'll probably either see super computers get cheaper or vanish slowly.

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
    3. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by Vinum · · Score: 1

      The PS2 costs the same really, and I have the offical version of Linux provided by Sony for it... so what is the point in putting linux on an XBox?

      Either way, it sucks on both systems due to limited main RAM.

      The coolest part is the cable that comes with the ps2 that lets you hook it up to a computer monitor and see things in a much higher resolution. Of course, you can't make existing games go high res, but you can write your own games to play high res.

      The only thing I didn't like was how difficult it was to actually figure out how to write simple games. It comes with nothing to really help you out and point you in the right direction, but in the end I can say that if you can't figure it out with the material provided (just search the DVDs) you will never be able to program for it anyway...

    4. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would make a great "switch" ad -- Saddam explaining why it sucks to use a PC, and how the mac made being a dictator fun again...

    5. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by vasqzr · · Score: 2


      Instead of struggling with Windows settings and DLL's, I can blow up countries!

      He's certainly not going to save Christmas....

    6. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Step one: Plug it in.
      Step two: Turn it on.
      Step three: dey say dere iz no step three! When do I get my bioweapons?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      so what is the point in putting linux on an XBox?

      IMO, there's many points in putting Linux on an XBox. XBox is simply a PC, with a custom security methods. So theoretically at some stage in the future, any version of Linux could easily be made to run on XBox. In addition, say I wished to use Crossover Office - a x86 program - I couldn't run this on a PS2. I wouldn't want my main workstation to be an XBox, but IMHO there is certainly much point in being able to run Linux on XBox.

      Tim

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    8. Re:Wait until the weapons inspectors get to Iraq! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA; so true.

  8. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look, all the 'cool' people are doing Linux, right? But BIG IRON is clearly trying to suck you and your money in. Oh, it's so cheap, but they don't tell you about the hidden costs, do they?

    Just say no to BIG IRON!

    --
    [o]_O
  9. the world's fastest machines by Wild+Bill+Hickock · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:the world's fastest machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't suppose you are looking to pick up some karma now are you buddy ?

  10. Parallel computing by vlad_petric · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The difficulty is not to conglomerate processing power ... you can do that relatively easily with Benjamins ... the real difficulty is in either parallelizing your computations, or making a single processor work faster.

    So the Teraflops they're mentioning are just a theoretical upper bound, don't get too aroused when you see it.

    The Raven.

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:Parallel computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing cool about your post. Your still as big of a loser as before, and you will still never date a real life girl.

    2. Re:Parallel computing by Hawaiian+Lion · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I've done a little parallel programming working at my college for a professor as well as an internship for Gemini Observatories in Hawaii.

      From what I've seen, just about any simulation involving large systems of particles can be fairly easily parallelized code-wise. These are mostly the sort of problems that require massive processing power in the first place.

      I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't be getting hyped about these teraflops. We use a 8 node AppleSeed cluster at work and I've seen that thing hump out 4-6 gigaflops of crunching power. It takes as long as a week to run some of our molecular dynamics simulations. If we had 10 teraflops of power in our hands those simulations could take somewhere on the order of minutes instead of days.

    3. Re:Parallel computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...don't get too aroused when you see it.

      Too late... I'm just gonna go get a big steaming bowl of Natalie Portman with some hot grits or something...

    4. Re:Parallel computing by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't be getting hyped about these teraflops. We use a 8 node AppleSeed cluster at work and I've seen that thing hump out 4-6 gigaflops of crunching power. It takes as long as a week to run some of our molecular dynamics simulations. If we had 10 teraflops of power in our hands those simulations could take somewhere on the order of minutes instead of days.

      As an aside, I have to wonder whether or not that's a good thing. I have noticed in myself and almost everyone I've worked with that having massive amounts of CPU at your disposal makes you sloppy - people tend to take a "shotgun" approach, rather than thinking through a problem, they just "try something" until it works. Of course in some cases, CPU really is cheaper than developer time, but in just as many cases, it's an excuse for laziness. I see this all the time, people will build an over-complex solution using technologies like J2EE and EJBs when something much simpler and more efficient would suffice. For another example, every Slashbot who has complained about bloat in MS Office knows exactly what I mean.

      Roll on the teraflops, but not before developers have the self-discipline to use them well.

    5. Re:Parallel computing by Hawaiian+Lion · · Score: 2, Informative

      in case you were interested...

      GROMACS is the main simulation program we use. Its very well programmed, optimized, and GPL to boot. I hope that the software I write will have this sort of functionality and optimization.

    6. Re:Parallel computing by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      The problem is, decent-sized particle simulations require lots of memory, something that can often lead to slowdowns on x86-clusters. Thanks to some friends at NSC(National Supercomputer Centre) in Sweden, I had the opportunity to try out some particle and airflow simulations on some of their computers during a calm period with low usage. I got to use 16 CPU's and 16GB RAM on the Origin 3800, and it was about twice as fast on my problem as the 32-node Beowulf, with each node a Thunderbird 900MHz and 512MB RAM/CPU, SCI interconnects. If it was just the CPU crunching power that mattered, the Beowulf cluster should have left the Origin nodes I could use in the dust.

      On the desktop, I've used a dual Xeon box, with 2GB RAM, and I constantly max out the memory. =(

      Oh well, both the Origin and the Beowulf cluster finished in less than an hour what takes my home box over a week to do... =(

    7. Re:Parallel computing by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      GROMACS is the main simulation program we use. Its very well programmed, optimized, and GPL to boot. I hope that the software I write will have this sort of functionality and optimization

      Indeed, this is one of the cases in which CPU is really useful. I think GROMACS is the core of what Folding@Home do. But you can bet they developed it on much smaller systems and proved it for trivial cases based on deep understanding of the theory and algorithms before making it scale to supercomputers.

    8. Re:Parallel computing by afidel · · Score: 2

      It IS a good thing. Problems that could never be solved otherwise become easy when you can throw an arbitrary amount of cpu power at a problem. For instance we were trying to compact a 5 element antenna array into a smaller space, so one of the engineers cooked up a genetic algorithm to find a more fit solution where the fitness paramaters were towards a smaller antenna that would have similar characteristics to the origional antenna. Well what do you know but the computer found a 3 element array that would perform within .5% of the 5 element array! This is not something a human would have ever found through trial and error or even good design work, but the software found the solution in under a week running on a cluster of about a dozen Sun's.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:Parallel computing by kvandivo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you need to be using NAMD to do your MD simulations..

      http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/namd/

      --
      http://www.WinWithRealEstate.com/
    10. Re:Parallel computing by Hawaiian+Lion · · Score: 1

      my boss works for a development team based at UIUC. I'll get back to you on why we use GROMACS and not NAMD.

      Aron

    11. Re:Parallel computing by Hawaiian+Lion · · Score: 1

      GROMACs is better suited for the sort of work we're doing. No further comments =)

      Aron

    12. Re:Parallel computing by lnixon · · Score: 1

      Well, they claim 9.2 teraflops theoretical peak
      performance, and that will probably still yield
      something like 4-5 teraflops actual sustained
      performance, as measured by standard LINPACK
      benchmark.

  11. Wow by Zayin · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Using PCI host adapters and Xeon processors, engineers at Lawrence Livermore National Labs have achieved 10-TFlops relatively cheaply.


    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those! Er... Nevermind.

    --
    "I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
  12. Is this a big deal? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The important part isn't the number of FLOPS (to get those you can just keep buying more PCs until you reach the desired number) but the performance in applications which are not 'embarassingly parallel'. In other words how good is the interconnect between machines? The article talks about a new network to replace Gigabit Ethernet.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:Is this a big deal? by dsfd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are right, the network AND the algorithms are the the key in many cases, not just FLOPS.

      A good example is solving large linear equation systems, with say 10^7 unkowns or more. This is a central problem in many fields of scientific computing. In our CFD simulations we need to solve 10^6 linear systems with 3x10^6 unkowns each to obtain the final answer.

      It is difficult to use large number of processors to do it efficiently, specially if you use a conventional 100 Mbits/s network with high latency. Currently we are using 36 processors to do so, and the solution of each system takes about 4 seconds. Just multiply to have an idea of the total processing time !

      But without Beowulf clusters (and GNU/Linux is a central part of them) this kind of problems would requiere conventional, very expensive supercomputers.

  13. Interesting Approach on Network by jki · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Selected clips:

    The system has a few unique features that the lab says will facilitate applications performance, including a fast, custom-made network that taps into an enterprisewide file system.

    "This network approach is nice because we can use a standard PCI slot on each processor node, which gives a 4.5-microsecond latency," he said, as opposed to 90-s latency for Gigabit Ethernet."

    The boards are linked by a network assembled by Linux Networx into a clustered system that will have 960 server nodes.

    The file system, called Lustre, uses a client/server model. Large, fast RAM-based memory systems support a metadata center, and data is represented across the enterprise in the form of object-storage targets. "Being able to share data across the enterprise is an exciting new capability

    I think this is especially interesting, because it seems to glue together pieces from traditional clustering and distribted or metacomputing. Is there some site for this project with more details?

    1. Re:Interesting Approach on Network by hawkstone · · Score: 3, Informative

      More details -- probably more than you want :) -- here:
      http://www.llnl.gov/linux/mcr/.

    2. Re:Interesting Approach on Network by selectspec · · Score: 2

      So are they running multiple GigE HBAs off the PCI bus to interconnect? What is the actual interconnect between the processors?

      --

      Someone you trust is one of us.

    3. Re:Interesting Approach on Network by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      Based on the link provided in another post, it looks like Quadrics.

    4. Re:Interesting Approach on Network by SiliconSlick · · Score: 1

      Yes, it appears to be using Quadrics QsNet Elan3,
      whatever that is...

      http://www.quadrics.com/website/pages/02qsn.html

      That's a new one to me (surprised it wasn't Myrinet).

    5. Re:Interesting Approach on Network by selectspec · · Score: 2

      Wow, QsNet looks pretty sweet. Also looks extremely expensive. I'm not quite sure I'd call it "off the shelf."

      --

      Someone you trust is one of us.

    6. Re:Interesting Approach on Network by draziw · · Score: 1

      For more information, oddly 'nuff, you can visit www.lustre.org. :)

  14. Does that mean... by haxor.dk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...that Apple's glorious supercomputers are obsolete?

    Damn... :/

    1. Re:Does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they were always obsolete. Try oranges for better results!

    2. Re:Does that mean... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, it wouldn't be stupid of Apple to try to build in some code for arbitrarily large clusters into Darwin. It would really be a prestige coup if a mac cluster became a top-500 computer.

    3. Re:Does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will never work. Palladium is needed for this kind of thing, and so far Apple isn't on board.

    4. Re:Does that mean... by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · · Score: 1

      They're still pretty to look at, though, and have a more intuitive GUI

      --

      He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
    5. Re:Does that mean... by popeyethesailor · · Score: 2

      Imagine an Orchard of them apples !

    6. Re:Does that mean... by d^2b · · Score: 2, Informative

      Until Apple submits SPECCPU benchmark results, it is hard to escape the conclusion that they are not cost effective machines for building scientific computing clusters.

      Of course the benchmarks might make that conclusion inescapable.

      Mac fans are welcome to do the benchmarking to prove my suspicions incorrect. Or you could translate this page from Japanese. It seems to say that a G4 at 1GHz is about 1/6 the speed of a 2.8GHz P4 on the floating point benchmark.

      Yes, they would be rockin fast if they used IBM Power4s. But they don't.

    7. Re:Does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why buy commodity PC's running a free OS when you can be running Darwin (with a nice GUI) on a non-free OS?

      Hmmmmm..

  15. obligatory post by valmont · · Score: 1, Redundant
    ... imagine a flea-market-invading, walmart-shelf-rackmount mutating, penguin-magnet, fear-of-god-inducing beowulf cluster of these!

  16. who ever said ... by valmont · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... that penguins couldn't do steroids?

    1. Re:who ever said ... by porn*! · · Score: 1

      So the fastest machine running linux would be the emperor penguin?

      em'peror pen"guin the largest of the penguins, Aptenodytes forsteri

      'Wow, the boos are alot louder onstage'
      -porn*!

    2. Re:who ever said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No that would be a penguin with fire on its ass

  17. Connections through PCI bus? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Do I understand correctly that they just wired PCI slots from different motherboards together, instead of running the data around over ethernet (which probably would have been plugged into a PCI slot anyway)? If so, I mean, if there's nothing more to it than that, it seems like this will be a kickass way of clustering. But there must be something more to it than I realize, because if there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many ethernet-based beowulf systems.

    So please explain this. I mean, I have two linux boxes in my room and each has a free PCI slot. What do I need to to to network them over directly over PCI?

    1. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Amizell · · Score: 1

      Connections through PCI bus? (Score:2) by Dr. Spork on Tuesday November 12, @03:08AM (#4649358) (User #142693 Info) Do I understand correctly that they just wired PCI slots from different motherboards together, instead of running the data around over ethernet (which probably would have been plugged into a PCI slot anyway)? If so, I mean, if there's nothing more to it than that, it seems like this will be a kickass way of clustering. But there must be something more to it than I realize, because if there wasn't, there wouldn't be so many ethernet-based beowulf systems. So please explain this. I mean, I have two linux boxes in my room and each has a free PCI slot. What do I need to to to network them over directly over PCI?

      I'm curious about this too... Wouldn't they have bus timing issues? There must be some extra piece of hardware involved... If that's the case isn't it basically just a new kind of NIC?

      alex

      --
      --- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
    2. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must be some extra piece of hardware involved

      You mean like a PCI-PCI bridge?

    3. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Wouldn't they have bus timing issues? There must be some extra piece of hardware involved... If that's the case isn't it basically just a new kind of NIC?

      I don't know much about this type of stuff, but wouldn't it be awesome if the way they made it work is through software? If they did, Linux/Beowulfing would be about to take a huge leap forward.

      Anyway, maybe this is not the sort of thing you can solve with software. Whatever they're using to connect the computers sounds very practical though, not just for supercomputers but for general fast networking. When can we do this at home?

    4. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    5. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me it almost sounds like custom PCI cards. each PCI card is an entire PC with a few CPUs on each card, and theyre plugged into a PCI bus backplate kind of thing (basically a board with a ton of PCI slots all interconnected)

    6. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.linuxnetworx.com/news/llnl_info.php
      ht tp://www.linuxnetworx.com/products/evolocity.php
      http://www.lnxi.com/news/7.15.2002.19-Worlds_Fas te st.html

      Look around there's some interesting things there.

    7. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      install two ethernet cards take cat5 rewire it (turn the cables around from one of the sides) and plug it into your computers!

    8. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea it's actually a new NIC which downloads at 10 Kb per hour and it needs basic water cooling to stay alive.

    9. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by tap · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There are chips designed to connect two PCI busses together, called PCI-PCI Bridges. For instance, I have an Intel dual port ethernet card with one:

      Bus 0, device 12, function 0: PCI bridge: Digital Equipment Corporation DECchip 21152 (rev 3). Master Capable. Latency=64. Min Gnt=4.

      But you can't use this to connect a rack of computers. For one thing the max cable length for connecting two busses would be just a few inches. For putting PCI cards in 1.75" high 1U rackmount cases, there are PCI risers with a short ribbon cable that connects to the PCI slot. Even these short cables often cause timing problems. For instance, with the riser, cards may only work in the first one or two slots that will otherwise work in all the slots.

      But even if you could cable all the computers together on one giant PCI bus, it would still be a bad idea. A good 24 port gigabit ethernet switch (~$2000) has a 480MB/sec switching fabric, to support full speed full duplex on each port. 32 bit 33Mhz PCI is only about 132 MB/sec, not nearly as fast. You'd need a 64 bit 66 Mhz PCI bus to keep up. And there are more expensive gbit switches with more ports that have 100 Gbit/sec fabric. And this is just gbit ethernet, the slowest and cheapest of the high speed interconnects used in modern Beowulf clusters.

      There are faster ways to connect computers than gigabit ethernet. The EE times article is very untechnical, but this one has some more information. LLNL has used a very fast and very expensive interface called quadrics. This is probably the fastest way to connect computers in a Beowulf. People like Cray/SGI and IBM have faster things still, but they cost real big bucks. Other ways to connect a Beowulf are the above mentioned gigabit ethernet (~$100-$250 a node for up to 24 nodes), myrinet (~$1400-$2000 /node up to 128 nodes), and SCIhardware and software (~$1400-$2100 /node). Myrinet uses a switch like gigabet ethernet and the largest switch they have is 128 ports. SCI is switchless, each card has multiple cables (1-3), and is connected in into a ring, 2D or 3D torus.

    10. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by jpc · · Score: 1

      Thearticle was very vague, but you do wonder if the reason they are packing them in so close is ro use PCI on at least some of the interconnects. Many blade servers sit in a (sometimes 64/66) PCI bus per rack (most blade machines are built on PCI cards). You are not going to be able to do it with all the machines in the rack, because as you say you need some switching.

      Of course that is where the future Cray Hammer based system wins out as you have hypertransport directly on chip to build these interconnects.

      MIPS does have some nice things though, like being available now in very low power with lots of cores per package: eg
      http://www.broadcom.com/products/1250.html
      th is has 2 64bit MIPS cores, DDR memory controller, 3 gigabit controllers, hypertransport and 66MHz PCI, and 2 T3 interfaces, for about $500 in volume... and it dissipates 10W.

    11. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by joto · · Score: 2

      And of course, you must not forget the magics of SCSI. Well, maybe not the fastest, but certainly faster than gigabit ethernet. And scores well on the support and availability scale.

    12. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by heim913 · · Score: 2

      But even if you could cable all the computers together on one giant PCI bus, it would still be a bad idea. A good 24 port gigabit ethernet switch (~$2000) has a 480MB/sec switching fabric, to support full speed full duplex on each port. 32 bit 33Mhz PCI is only about 132 MB/sec, not nearly as fast.

      Did we follow the standard form of not reading the article?
      QUOTE:
      ...standard PCI slot on each processor node, which gives a 4.5-microsecond latency," he said, as opposed to 90-s latency for Gigabit Ethernet...

      The advantage of the pci bus is its low latency.

    13. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      Both Ethernet and Quadrics attach to the PCI bus, so the article is a bit misleading. The reduction in latency is just because Quadrics has lower latency than Ethernet; it has nothing to do with PCI.

    14. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Other ways to connect a Beowulf are the above mentioned gigabit ethernet (~$100-$250 a node for up to 24 nodes)


      Don't forget that you can use multiple overlapped switches with channel bonding. Using at least 3 cards per machine gives a very reasonable average distance between nodes up to several hundred nodes. While I imagine the i/o bus would limit you from getting the full benifit of 3+ gigabit cards, by overlapping latency is signifigantly reduced. All this at a cost still quite a bit less than even MPI, let alone the more classy stuff.
    15. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's likely a Quadrics interconnect. That was one of the major targets for Lustre development.

    16. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could the ignorant please refrain from posting? Responses to this posting are especially bad. The E7500 and Supermicro boards support PCI-X at 66, 100, and 133 MHz (64 bits). PCI-X uses lower voltage signaling than PCI so distance isn't so restricted. 33 MHz PCI is a joke and shouldn't even be discussed here. Worse, many chipsets do a very poor job implementing even it, like NForce2. The situation continues to look grim with lukewarm vendor interest in Granite Bay with PCI-X slots. AMD's MPX continues to be the low-cost leader for high bus bandwidth.

      DEC used to make a standard product that was a PCI bridge between processors for this type of application. I assume they buffered the signals and with PCI's tollerance for slow transferring devices, the extra latency should not have been too challanging. Engineers at DEC were pretty good at PCI, Ethernet, and FDDI amongst other things. When Intel bought the Alpha technology, they also got the PCI bridge chips and Ethernet chip technology. DEC's PCI link product is now out of date, but the technique obviously still works.

      Gigabit Ethernet is no panacia, but still beats 10/100. Early implementations of Fast Ethernet were flawed and the same was/is true for gigE. Its also not designed for least latency like the cluster guys need. Delaying interrupts after a packet tx/rx is intended to for a Nagle-like work saving so there are not 100,000's of interrupts per second. The price is latency. Most GigE NICs don't do Jumbo frames very well either - not enough buffer space on the chip. The other cards mentioned above do a much better job - big transfers and low latency.

    17. Re:Connections through PCI bus? by Sinical · · Score: 1

      Not quite. See the Quadrics webpage. This machine is using the Qsnet product. You stick a card in a PCI slot on each machine (it's not obvious if you *have* to have a switch in between or not for only a 2-machine network), and use the provided library to send data around.

      Therefore, it does not appear to be transparent.

      Also, from using a similar interface that is ~$4k per, I'd guess that these are Officially Not Cheap, although maybe if you buy in the quantities that these guys do, you can make out okay.

      Really, for most user-level applications, it's hard to beat Fast Ethernet. I paid $26 each for my cards, and $90 for the hub.

  18. Linux rulez RL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This type of capability elevates computer simulation to the same level as physical experiment and theory, so it is going to allow us to do groundbreaking scientific work,"

    Yes, why don't they stop doing real physical experiments and just use this Linux-cluster instead? As we all know here, Linux is far better than the reality ;*)

    (MS-Certs: Admit it! You know Linux is, you're just being stubborn!!)

  19. I need one! by Newer+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a lot of movies to convert to DIVX...

  20. cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The boards are linked by a network assembled by Linux Networx into a clustered system that will have 960 server nodes. - Do you call this relatively cheap?? it sure doesn't sound very cheap.

    Hopefully the Cell will soon be out on the market. A cluster with 10 computers using the Cell will overrun this, and it would also be some hundred thousand dollars cheaper =)

  21. Re:Mod here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'LL SEE YOU IN METAMOD!!!

  22. Linux OS of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Lately, Linux seems to be the operating system of choice for new supercomputers, and this one's no different. It's cool to see big iron made cheaply."

    That's because nobody has the money to invest in a more expensive solution!

    1. Re:Linux OS of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, we got the money allright! But we also got the brains not to waste that money if there's a cheap solution! Moron.

    2. Re:Linux OS of choice by mpe · · Score: 2

      Oh yeah, we got the money allright! But we also got the brains not to waste that money if there's a cheap solution!

      And to make your money go further. Considerably further when you consider the possible licence costs of even trying to do something like this with Windows.

  23. I told you.... by stephenisu · · Score: 3, Funny

    I told you my other Boxen was a 1000 node beowulf cluster... But no one believed my sticker...

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
  24. Need for speed by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 2

    Great, now I can do my spreadsheets and word processing way faster than before... :)

  25. God may forgive you for your bad jokes...... by Chas · · Score: 1

    But I sure as hell won't!

    *Sets Zayin on fire.*

    Tell me about Beowulfs NOW!

    ;)

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  26. d'oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LLNL offered me an interview but I turned it down because I already had one scheduled in redmond for the same day. Ah such is life.

  27. yeah, well.. by radon28 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, President, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977.

    1. Re:yeah, well.. by Kibo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting observation. So whatever happened to DEC anyway? Oh yeah.... It's not always the sick or weak, sometimes it's the unaware that end up being prey.

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    2. Re:yeah, well.. by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      One of the bigwigs at Xerox said, "We are not going to gamble our future on something called a mouse," and just gave away the precursor of Macintosh to Steve Jobs. Those suits in the boardrooms make village idiots look smart.

      --
      How ya like dat?
  28. Processing power by rovingeyes · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Actually, your statement made me wonder for a while. I remember that till not long ago, US wouldn't let other countries buy latest super computers becoz they feared it'd be used to do those nuclear explosion simlations. Now I'm not sure if it still is the case.

    Anyways, what I'm trying to point out is that it is actually becoming very convinient to build a super computer with lots of PCs that just lie idle. I am not sure if Saddam has heard about cheap linux systems. But what if he could build a super computer cluster?

    Boy this gets interesting and scarier at the same time.

    1. Re:Processing power by Duds · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed. Beowolfing (is that a new word) conviently skips a lot of that. The law was actually changed when the US realised that the Playstation 2 was technically a super computer. Not that they had jurstiction on the PS2 itself but it brought home it was daft.

    2. Re:Processing power by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyways, what I'm trying to point out is that it is actually becoming very convinient to build a super computer with lots of PCs that just lie idle. I am not sure if Saddam has heard about cheap linux systems. But what if he could build a super computer cluster?

      Well, it depends. A Linux cluster is a good way to render a movie, because you can easily parallelize that task - send a frame to each node you've got, wait for it to come back, send out the next one, then when you're done composite them into an animation. That's easy, because you can make each task essentially stateless. For example, you don't have to wait for frame 1 to rasterize before you know how to light frame 2.

      But in many scientific computations, there is a limit to how you can subdivide a task. Say you are modelling the movement of a gas in 3 dimensional space, you cannot partition your space 3x3x3 and send it to 27 compute nodes, because what happens in each partition both influences and is influenced by what happens in adjacent partitions. If you did try to do something like this on a cluster designed for rendering movies (or brute forcing a cipher, or serving web pages) performance would be terrible because of the overhead of communication between nodes. For that, a Single System Image machine has a vast advantage.

      So the question is (and I don't know, I didn't study nuclear physics beyond A-level), are the significant computational problems associated with the development of nuclear weapons easy to parallelize, or do they require a real supercomputer?

    3. Re:Processing power by mijok · · Score: 1

      Interesting indeed. As far as I remember there is a new limit now - it used to be 1 GHz if I remember correctly and I don't remember the new one. Is it likely that instead of reaching any technical limit processor speeds would be limited by what the US government decides? Or wait, would Palladium - "we decide what you can run on your computer" - be the answer? Hopefully not.

      --
      Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
    4. Re:Processing power by rovingeyes · · Score: 2
      So the question is (and I don't know, I didn't study nuclear physics beyond A-level), are the significant computational problems associated with the development of nuclear weapons easy to parallelize, or do they require a real supercomputer [sgi.com]?

      Well a simple pointer to the answer might be this article. Now whether this experiment was successful or can it be reproduced?

    5. Re:Processing power by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

      am not sure if Saddam has heard about cheap linux systems. But what if he could build a super computer cluster? So what.. he hasnt nuked anyone till yet. Though a particular country has already used a nuke

      --
      My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
      FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    6. Re:Processing power by Orthanc_duo · · Score: 1

      From your link:
      SGI Origin 3900 will enable customers to "do more" with its unique SGI® NUMAflexTM shared-memory architecture and optimized operating and development environment

      Last time I checked shared memeory was only an issue for multi processor computers....
      still got to handle the paralisation.

    7. Re:Processing power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      are the significant computational problems associated with the development of nuclear weapons easy to parallelize

      Well, we could tell you yes/no/maybe, but then we'd have to whisk you away to that Nevada military base that does not exist (-:

    8. Re:Processing power by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So the question is (and I don't know, I didn't study nuclear physics beyond A-level), are the significant computational problems associated with the development of nuclear weapons easy to parallelize, or do they require a real supercomputer [sgi.com]?

      I believe the calculations needed are massive finite element calculations. And I would imagine that things happen quickly enough in a nuclear explosion that there's a lot of significant stuff going on over a time period much shorter than it takes for any change to move from one side of the simulated device to the other.

      As an analogy, suppose you wanted to simulate a large number of gravitating bodies. You would break the problem up into sections. Even though each body acts on every other, bodies outside a certain distance can be treated by their average force. So you can simulate things near each other on the same node, and have the nodes talk to pass the information about the "average" field. It requires some communication between nodes, but a large amount of work can be done on an individual nodes.

      Or for your gas example, if you broke the problem up into boxes, you would have to "hand off" a particle as it passed from one box to another, and perhaps pass off information about forces close to the box boundaries. But if a lot of stuff is happening in a single box (like, say, chemical reactions), you can still get a big benefit out of parallalization.

      Also, if designing nuclear bombs is anything like designing microwave components, you would have several simulations going at the same time, to try different variations on one design. Or you would design several subparts and have them running at the same time.

      In short, I think that the problem very much lends it self to parallel computing.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    9. Re:Processing power by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since the first Atomic Bomb was made in 1944-45 and worked the first time. All you need is a computer equal to what they had in 1944.
      To make a small portable nuke is harder.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Processing power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But since scientific applications have to start somewhere and end up somewhere, it's definitely possible to *propagate* thoughout the cluster, i.e. not use everything all at once, but ramp up as needed. That'd still be a major improvement.

    11. Re:Processing power by Jester99 · · Score: 2

      Indeed, what if Saddam thought about using a Beowulf cluster to develop nukes?

      Hm. Waitasec. Didn't the USA design nuclear weapons in the 1940s using a dozen nerds with pocket protectors and slide rules?!?

      I honestly don't see the big stink about computing power being linked to weapons research. If our enemies want weapons, no technology embargo will put their desires down, if they're strong enough.

    12. Re:Processing power by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      in 1940s It was a whole lot of people in a room running Monte Carlo code.

      Note that Monte Carlo codes are very parallelizable, one often needs to transport billions of particles, and the problem is only ~10 kbytes; so set it up on each computer, give each a distinct seed (that's the tricky part) and let each transport 1/n particles. Or, in 1944, just run it all on the same "machine."

  29. PCI Null-Modem by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Uuh, I mean null-card connection. I have never really looked at the PCI spec from an eletrical engineer standpoint, but there are probably power leads, data leads, timing leads, and ground leads on there.

    The data leads should be easy...TX to RX. Although they may use a full-duplex lead where the data shares the bus based on clock pulses.

    The power could be dropped, as both machines already have the proper power requirements. The ground leads could be tied together if you wanted, but dropping them shouldn't have too much impact on the final outcome.

    The tricky part would be the clock pulses. In order to keep the data integrity, you need to have both bachines on the same clock. The easy way would be to take the crystal from one motherboard and wire it to the other. Same crystal, same clock pulse.

    Then drivers would be needed to make the other computer look like an attached device. Shouldn't be too difficult. Just take a NIC driver and modify it...heavily.

    I think an easier option would be to share data across the IDE bus. Make an IDE driver look like a NIC driver and send IP across IDE. In fact, I remember Linux Journal publishing an article about someone doing IP over SCSI about 2 years ago. Get some SCSI cards and make your own version of a CDDI network ring.

    --
    I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    1. Re:PCI Null-Modem by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

      Cool! The only part that really sounds hard is the clock synching, and the software. So why not really go for it and use the AGP slot? Shouldn't that give you higher throughput and even less latency? This looks like it would be an awesome geek project.

    2. Re:PCI Null-Modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from the fact these Supermicro E7500 based server mobos don't have AGP, AGP is really, really asymmetrical. Data transfer rate and latency would be great in one direction and worse than a dedicated gigabit ethernet link in the other direction.

    3. Re:PCI Null-Modem by lightweave · · Score: 1

      I wonder why this took so long? SCSI wired together only 2 years ago?
      This may sound like bragging, but I was thinking about that more than 5-8 years ago when I had my first SCSI drives and a network card. I was talking with a friend about this idea, because I thought that using two SCSI controls instead of a network card should yield a much better performance. The only reason I never got around to it, was that I have no hand for hardware, though I might be able to have wirtten the device drivers for the controllers. Than again I may have not, but still I wonder why this idea took so long. Seems I should have done it and now I would a millionaire. :)

    4. Re:PCI Null-Modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCSI is relatively easy, the controller has to be able to operate in target mode, I think some adaptec cards were able to do this. Anyway, this all been done a long time ago. VMS can use a shared SCSI-bus as cluster transport (as well as ethernet, DSSI, CI, memorychannel and so on).

      It's a bit tricky but doable. I've got no idea about IDE though.

    5. Re:PCI Null-Modem by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AGP is only useful for one-way communication. Great for shoving data to the monitor, but sucks for pulling data from an outside source. I'd say if you really wanted a challenge, use the memory bus for networking. The prob would be timeouts while waiting for the data to be pulled across the wire from the other machines' memory bank.

      Or, go for broke and use the second processor slot in a dual mobo.

      On the cheap end, you could use the USB and a null-modem cable there to link 2 boxes.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    6. Re:PCI Null-Modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were SCSI-Networking drivers from the Amiga world back in the early 90s for the Amiga (and PC). At the time, one could do Amiga-Amiga, Amiga-PC, PC-PC. This is the only evidence I can find now, but I remember the hack.

      The amiga was heavily used for Render Farms around then, it was the beowulf-cluster of its day, people in the tv and direct-to-video film industry used to buy 30 amigas running Lightwave and network them instead of a high-end unix box.

    7. Re:PCI Null-Modem by jelle · · Score: 2

      "The tricky part would be the clock pulses. In order to keep the data integrity, you need to have both bachines on the same clock. The easy way would be to take the crystal from one motherboard and wire it to the other. Same crystal, same clock pulse."

      With the frequencies and distances involved, I doubt that that will work. I think the tranmission line delay of the wires will mess it up. I suspect they have some sort of dual-port buffer in the cards to allow multiple clock domains.

      What I'm wondering is: Where can I get those cards and how much do they cost?

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  30. Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They put tux on amphetamine?

    I guess the heroine billg has been taking has finally rotted his brain.

  31. Re:Mod here by e8johan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you would supply me with contact information, maybe we could discuss this. I feel that moderators should not doubt he facts supplied by the submitters, but rather value the information as if it is true.

    I think that it is nice to see moderators yelling, flaming and behaving generally bad (yes, I mean that you do that). Tell me who you are and we can have a discussion concerning me working or not.

    As for your comments about my employment. I have not said that the company I work for is "Extremely Important(tm)", I just said that we have needs for lagre computations and have invested in a Linux-based system. I am not " karma whoring by spouting bullshit", if you do not like my comments, simply mark me as a foe, and add -2 to my comments, do not mod me down simply because you have problems trusting people!

  32. whoop de doo by tomlord · · Score: 1

    So, you put together N processors worth M mflops each and focus only on suitably parallizable computations so then you can claim M*N performance. Yeah? Really? So what?

    The average geek is an idiot.

    1. Re:whoop de doo by joib · · Score: 2


      Yeah? Really? So what?


      The point is that even though real applications typically achieve only 5-10% of the peak flops it's still a very fast machine. And better bang for the buck than other approaches to achieve the same level of performance.

  33. Breaking News! by Quaoar · · Score: 1, Funny

    This just in...a computer has just been built with...and you won't believe this: computer parts!

    Slashdot.org is there!

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
  34. huu needs it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs something like 10 Teraflops? I mean seriously.. If you are a dabbler and want to have that, then go ahead, but any serious party would not build their own computer if they need superpowers, they would buy it from professionals like IBM.

    1. Re:huu needs it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM can give you superpowers?

      Your advice and expertise on this matter are very much appreciated.

  35. ten times cheaper by Sarin · · Score: 2

    It's ten times cheaper, but still roughly a hundred times more expensive than most people can afford.

    1. Re:ten times cheaper by jki · · Score: 1
      It's ten times cheaper, but still roughly a hundred times more expensive than most people can afford

      The good part in it - is that most people don't need to be able to afford it. And, if we some day release we do, then one of the existing massively distributed computing efforts will facilitate something similar to be utilized by the Joe Average. So, yes, I believe in the future common people will have access to vast distributed CPU resources - the only "little" problem there is that the bandwidth problem is a bit harder to solve - but in 20-30 years, maybe bandwidth does not work as so bad bottleneck anymore :)

    2. Re:ten times cheaper by ITO · · Score: 1

      Even if that is true .. it's still cheaper

  36. And they said Linux was a toy.... by LazLong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is most hilarious about all this is that three years ago the same people at the Lab who put together this cluster, Livermore Computing, insisted that Linux was a toy....That it had no future in scientific computing....That it was a hobbyist's OS.

    I sure hope they love the taste of crow....

    1. Re:And they said Linux was a toy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you happen to have a link to where they said that at?

    2. Re:And they said Linux was a toy.... by LazLong · · Score: 1

      Nope....I heard it in person....

  37. I can see the adds now.. by PerryMason · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I was doing my nuclear simulations on the ASCII White and it was like BEEP BEEP BEEP...and like half my work was gone..."

    --
    "I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
  38. Purpose by S.I.O. · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they have a hidden 2 TB directory somewhere full of p0rn videos.

  39. The real question is by AbRASiON · · Score: 0

    Is Saddam such a bad guy if he's using linux and clustering ........... MMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm that's a hard one!

    1. Re:The real question is by rovingeyes · · Score: 2
      Is Saddam such a bad guy if he's using linux and clustering

      Answer: Depends on his intent. If he is using it for finding extra terrestrial life, by all means he can go ahead, but if he is using it to test one of his biological weapons then he is obviously bad.

    2. Re:The real question is by mpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Answer: Depends on his intent. If he is using it for finding extra terrestrial life, by all means he can go ahead, but if he is using it to test one of his biological weapons then he is obviously bad.

      What if he finds some ETs who can help him out with some guy, known as GW Bush, who wants to invade his country.

  40. Go Linux Compete Team, GO! by devnulljapan · · Score: 1
    Looks like this is one more for the Linux Compete Team...
    Like to see them try to get a win on this.
    ...do a walk-thru of their datacenters and take inventory of where you see Sun machines, IBM, 10-TFlop Computer Built from Standard PC Parts, etc and ask them what they running on those machines ... tattoo it on your butt ... something ... something ...
  41. Filesystem called Lustre... by Kenneth+Stephen · · Score: 2

    Does any /. reader have any info on this? Is this a network / distributed filesystem? Why did they choose to write a new filesystem rather than pick from any of the existing filesystems out there? More importantly, is this code publicly available?

    --

    There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

    1. Re:Filesystem called Lustre... by idiat · · Score: 1


      Lustre is a open-source project to develop a proper network filesystem for this kind of cluster. NFS just doesn't cut the mustard at this scale.

      It's hosted on sourceforge, not to difficult to find.

      --
      And remember folks, Gnu's *not* unix.
    2. Re:Filesystem called Lustre... by convolvatron · · Score: 1

      this is a GPL project being done by a small company, Clustered File Systems....www.lustre.org

      this is not a 'normal' filesystem. it stripes data across distributed disk servers and will provide clustered metadata services in the future

    3. Re:Filesystem called Lustre... by Copid · · Score: 1
      Lustre is a new distributed filesystem being developed by a company called Cluster Filesystems in conjunction with developers at LLNL. They're doing it because there is no good distributed filesystem for large Linux clusters. NFS doesn't even end up on the radar for a project like this, and PVFS has enough flaws in it to make it a fairly bad idea for such a large system.

      Anyway, it's a Linux kernel add-on, and yes, the code is publically available. Last I checked, though, it wasn't exactly a walk in the park to set up.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  42. Why XEONs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Why would they use ridiculously expensive Intel processors instead of equally powerful but much much less expensive AMDs?

    This is not a troll. I really want to know. Is it again because "no-one has ever been fired for buying Intel"?

    1. Re:Why XEONs? by tap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you check current prices, the Xeon isn't much more expensive than the AthlonMP. Pricewatch has the 2.2Ghz xeon at $245 and the athlonMP 2200+ at $204. Each of these machines is interconnected with a Quadrics board that probably costs more than $2000, so an extra $80 for CPUs isn't much.

      Why not use AMD anyway? There are xeon motherboards with chipsets like the Intel E7500 and ServerWorks GC-HE that have greater memory bandwidth and PCI bandwidth than the AMD 760MPX. For many problems in scientific computing, memory bandwidth is what is important, not CPU speed.

    2. Re:Why XEONs? by fitten · · Score: 3, Informative

      - Depends on the Xeons they are using. The 'old' Xeons are around the same cost as their AMD counterparts. The 'new' Xeons have large L3 caches (1M and 2M).

      - The AMD SMP chipset is slow (memory bandwidth) compared to the newer Intel chipsets.

      - IIRC, the P4s use less power than the Athlons, probably this is not as important but it is there.

      I'd like to see a comparison of a newer dual Xeon machine vs. a good dual AMD to see the performance difference. I would suspect that the dual Xeon machine would be a bit faster.

    3. Re:Why XEONs? by isaac · · Score: 2
      Why not use AMD anyway? There are xeon motherboards with chipsets like the Intel E7500 and ServerWorks GC-HE that have greater memory bandwidth and PCI bandwidth than the AMD 760MPX. For many problems in scientific computing, memory bandwidth is what is important, not CPU speed.

      I'd also add that a lot more time has been put into optimizing compilers for intel processors than for AMD. The differences really come out in computationally intensive situations.

      -Isaac

      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    4. Re:Why XEONs? by draziw · · Score: 1

      Heat and power... The Intel chips run cooler and user less power per TeraFlop (At the install date).

      Another ASCI system, Red Storm is based on AMD's Opteron chip.
  43. Brilliant news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is such excellent news! Soon all the custom big-iron builders like Sun, IBM, HP and SGI will be out of business and the world will be ruled by x86 machines and their derivatives, and all we'll be left with is clusters of intel and AMD machines. All those pesky 64-bit, complicated, incompatible, proprietory RISC architectures will go away, and their single system image multi-CPU boxen and chewing-gum-and-string home-made clusters will rule! God, I love progress :-) Oh, and all those high-performance compilers and other dev tools will disappear to, and all those highly-evolved UNIX derivatives.

    1. Re:Brilliant news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What are you talking about?

      Have you ever tried using the brilliant x86 compilers by Intel and Portland?

      What I really miss an AMD optimized compiler. The lack of AMD specific compiler is the reason why I've moved back to buying Intel only computers for simulation work.

    2. Re:Brilliant news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intel comiler is good for SPEC benchmarks, right enough. Pitty it sucks in the real world.

  44. (Open)MOSIX? by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone have any experience using (Open)MOSIX? I have a partially CPU-bound application (automatic part is IO-bound, manual part is CPU-bound) in Perl, Apache and MySQL. Anyone got experience with this stuff?

    For those who don't even know what MOSIX is, it is a kernel patch that essentially creates a virtual computer out of several boxes. They claim they will scale your application as long as you have multiple processes (they migrate them as needed) - without any coding on your part.

    Since I'm looking for extra performance with limited resources, this looks like a potentially easy way out :)

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:(Open)MOSIX? by caldaan · · Score: 1

      It is an interesting product. The problem with it is if the process uses shared memory it won't shove the process over to the other node, as it can't share memory from one node to the other.

      It works great for compiling code, converting a bunch of files at once from one format to the other. But the problem is it can't share the memory from one system to the other so it won't send database processes from one node to the other. I believe it said it wouldn't work for a web server either, but you would probably just have to test your application.

      Its pretty easy to set up, the config file is similar to /etc/hosts, just needs an extra network adapter per card, definitly shouldn't take to long to try it out anyway.

  45. Image Recognition. by Kibo · · Score: 1

    My porn is realistic enough, now it needs to be sorted, weeded for duplicates, and cataloged. And unfortunately there's too much for a human to do. Come to think of it, maybe the computer could appreciate it too. What was that movie again? Hardware?

    --
    --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    1. Re:Image Recognition. by arkanes · · Score: 2

      Thats where the filtering/neural net software talked about in the CIPA article would come in REALLY handy... if I had an AI assistant that could analyze my porn, and filter and sort it by category, length, resolution, etc, that would make me really happy. In all kinds of probably disturbing ways.

  46. This is not "Big Iron" by sdeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title says it all. Big Iron is _engineered_. No matter how big or how spiffy a Beowulf cluster is, it's still just a bunch of PC motherboards kludged together with a bunch of network cards. There is a reason Crays are expensive - they are _worth it_ from a performance standpoint, because not every problem lends itself easily to the solution of a Beowulf cluster. Some problems require the exchange of a lot of data between a lot of nodes, and a little math will show that it won't take much data interchange to saturate even a GigE switch. Adding more machines is not going to help; craftily designing and overengineering the network _might_, but by the time you get this whole damned thing glued together well enough to approximate a Cray's performance, you'll have spent enough to have just flat-out bought a Cray in the first place.

    As others have noted, while this thing may have a theoretical peak performance of 10 TFLOPS, I'm willing to bet that number goes down like Monica Lewinsky on Quaaludes when you feed this magical supercomputer a problem that's _not_ suitable for distributed.net (i.e. one where computations on one node are dependent on computations on another node, like fluid-dynamics problems, turbulence, etc.)

    Yeah, it's interesting as a curiosity, but this is by no means spectacular. Beowulf is good for what it's good for, which is a "poor-man's supercomputer" that works well for coarsely-parallel problems that don't require a lot of internode communication. It's not the Philosopher's Stone, folks.

    -SD

    --
    I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
  47. What a bunch of losers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that "Beowulf Clusters" are commonplace, heck, even Walmart sells them now, isn't this just a bit sad?

    Far better would have been to use a couple of million cheap XT's (heck people pay you to take them away) and build a "Beowolf Cluster" which would smoke this pathetic excuse for an abacus into the stratosphere!!

  48. nice but yawnish by tqft · · Score: 1

    I thought this was a much more interesting story Quantum encryption http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20021111S0036 "Supposedly at the stage of being rolled out For its part, MagiQ says that its Navajo system is currently at the alpha stage and promises real beta sites on selected campuses in the United States in the first quarter. Both companies are also talking about secure through-the-air communications with satellites. "

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  49. Typo in article by Spunk · · Score: 2, Informative

    You'd think the EETimes would catch something like this:

    nearly the same performance as the ASCII White system

    No, it's ASCI White. Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative, not the text format.

    1. Re:Typo in article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually it's the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative Institution

      So they're right and you're wrong.

  50. But it's only 32-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which means there's a 4 GB hard limit on the amount of RAM a process can use, and a big performance hit if a node has more than 4 GB RAM. Of course with 10 TB, there's some room to spare, but if a calculation is not very parallelizable, you're still limited to the speed of one node.

    1. Re:But it's only 32-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xeons allow you to segment the memory, which means you address up to a couple of TB of RAM. Each process is limited to 4 GB, but the system as a whole isnt.

    2. Re:But it's only 32-bit by turgid · · Score: 1

      A couple of TB? Er, the Pentium architecture has 36-bit addressing which is 4 bits + 32-bits which gives you 16 (4-bit's worth) banks of 4GB(32-bit's worth) of RAM. 16*4 is 64, so by my reckoning your "couple of terabytes" is in fact only 64 gigabytes, so it's a couple of orders of magnitude smaller. Anyway, we're back to the good old days of segmented memory :-) Oh joy! 64k of code, 64k of stack and 64k of data, and you'd better like it young man.

  51. Networks and parallel algorithms are the key by dsfd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The distributed memory Crays (T3D, T3E) are just the same: boards and network cards. The processors they use are not faster than the last generation PC processors. The difference are the NICs, that have about 10 times more bandwith and 10 times less latency (compared with standard fast ethernet cards).

    There is the difference. As you say, for certain problems, this means that the whole machine is about 10 times faster than a Beowulf.

    However, if/when conventional NICs are fast enough, specially in terms of latency, both systems can be equivalent again. In the meantime, a lot of people are trying to develop parallel algorithms that minimize the number and size of the messages, allowing to use cheap PCs as supercomputers.

    1. Re:Networks and parallel algorithms are the key by Sinical · · Score: 1

      Well, loosely. But note that they are at least using SMP (2-way Xeon) nodes: that probably helps if their algorithms are smart. It would be very hard to try and built a link that provides you with the same benefit as tons of processors on the same board. Note that: Big Iron has multiple chips that are physically close and are engineered to communicate with each other quickly.

      You cannot dismiss this with a simply "blah, just fast NICs". No. They. Aren't. When you have an 8-way SGI, you have 2, 4-cpu nodes with their own local memories (CC-NUMA: cache coherent non-uniform memory architecture), where latency to local memory is maybe 100ns, and to go 1 hop to the next node is another 100ns or whatever.

      I know there are starting to be NUMA Linux machines, but Beowulfs aren't these machines, so any hop from one machine to the next will have enormously more latency than something that can simply borrow some data from the next processor over.

      So yes, maybe bandwidth will catch up, but I don't see how latency really can. You can try with hypercube arrangements of links and so forth, but you can wire together Big Iron like this too (see the SGI super-dense server story from Slashdot a day or two ago).

      Or maybe you were just talking about really old supercomputer technology, about which I know jack, so I'll just shut up now.

    2. Re:Networks and parallel algorithms are the key by dsfd · · Score: 1

      >But note that they are at least using SMP (2-way Xeon) nodes: that probably helps if their algorithms are smart.

      Usually, parallel algorithms assume that each processor is equidistant (in terms of network) to all the rest. In some cases, yes it may be possible to take advantadge of having them in groups of two or four.. but in general this is difficult.

      >When you have an 8-way SGI, you have 2, 4-cpu nodes with their own local memories

      Yes but the problem is that the complexity of the bus increases with the square of the number of nodes, so you cannot scale that to any number of processors even if you are very rich. This is why really large computers use distributed memory. Well, maybe on each box there is more than one processor but overall they are distributed memory systems.

      >I know there are starting to be NUMA Linux machine (...) so any hop from one machine to the next will have enormously more latency

      NUMA is indeed a promising technology. However, as far as I know, it can in principle be implemented on top of any networking device, even conventional 100 Mbits/s stuff, so it won't solve the latency problem without special hardware. The main advantadge will be to be able to use shared memory programming model that is accepted to be easier than distributed memory (ie MPI)

      >So yes, maybe bandwidth will catch up, but I don't see how latency really can

      I agree with you. This is a crucial aspect for the future of low cost parallel computers. The problem as I see it is that high bandwith is important for many internet applications such as video. But not low lateny as for a human poit of view there is no difference between 10^-3 or 10^-5 seconds. The only application that I know where low latency is important is scientific computing. Therefore, the cost of low latency communications will remain high.

      Please correct/complement my point of view.

      >Or maybe you were just talking about really old supercomputer technology

      The first parallel computer I programmed was a SGI. I'm 34 :)

  52. Re:We use it! -Give him a break! by Scot+Seese · · Score: 2


    hej e8johan -

    Guys, Give him a break! My fiance' graduated with a Masters' from Chalmers. It's considered one of the more prestigious engineering schools in Europe. It's the Swedish "MIT". I think a little is being lost in the translation.. Don't mistake sarcasm for criticism. Slashdot is truely an international affair; Don't push our guests away. :)

    (my Swede and I reside in Indiana, and I'm a homegrown Ohio boy)

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  53. Not big iron. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 2

    There's a distinction to be drawn between big iron and a lot of small iron. People who've never used big iron never draw that distinction, nor do people who're trying to publicise their latest and greatest cluster, but there is a difference. A cluster of fast 32 bit PCs networked with gigabit ethernet does not big iron make.

  54. "total cost of ownership" against off-the-shelf by peter303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    2/3rds the cost of the three year computer lifetime is the electricity and cooling system. When TOC is counted a transmeta based cluster or the super-dese SGI cluster announced yesterday is cheaper.

  55. I had to laugh at these bits:- by Scooter · · Score: 2, Troll

    It's very impressive what they've built, and I'm not knocking it, but I nearly split my sides at some of the quotes not directly related to the speed or hardware architecture of the thing:-

    "We have been using the File Transfer Protocol over Gigabit Ethernet, but now we will be able to read files directly from any available disk,"

    Well - like wow - NFS/CIFS anyone. They've been ftp'ing docs to each other? ROFL :)

    "Being able to share data across the enterprise is an exciting new capability. It will allow more collaboration among research projects,"

    Ahh my sides are splitting - "shock news, scientists discover file sharing" heheh. Don't these guys have a file server? Guys listen up - you didn't need to design a world beating clusterbeast with 10Tflops just to share some files! LOL all that power just to let Larry from Sub-Atomic Meddling dept. look at a paper from Dave from the Induced Super Novae Working Comittee heheheh. These guys need to get out more: imagine their annoyance when they made this big announcement only to discover that not only has Novell, Microsoft/SAMBA, Unix/NFS done this already - they did it with only one CPU in the server!

    "This network approach is nice because we can use a standard PCI slot on each processor node, "

    Hmm like any network card you care to mention then really... Heheh "Hey like.. this network stuff is like - cool man!" What next? They invent a board with a button for each character they need to type? Priceless.

    I'm sure it's great but I only just stopped laughing at those quotes. I can only imagine (or hope) it's a case of clueless journo mis-quoting or quoting out of context or just completely missing the point of the project.

    1. Re:I had to laugh at these bits:- by Copid · · Score: 1
      Well - like wow - NFS/CIFS anyone. They've been ftp'ing docs to each other? ROFL :)

      Actually, they have a specially written parallel FTP client/server that stripes large pieces of data across multiple physical connections. Remember, we're talking about data sets that can be terabytes in size. To do this type of thing more efficiently, they've put together lustre. Check it out. It's no NFS/CIFS. It's supposedly the next step after IBM's GPFS.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    2. Re:I had to laugh at these bits:- by Scooter · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I knew there was probably a real reason - but it still made me laugh :) Typical "and now the science bit" journalism - they often miss the point (ie it's not that they can share files - it's that they can share massive files).

  56. Babelfish [Engineer - Geek] by grub · · Score: 3, Funny


    "We have been using the File Transfer Protocol over Gigabit Ethernet, but now we will be able to read files directly from any available disk."

    translation
    We used to use FTP over Gig-E but came up with something more L337.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  57. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it play Ogg Vorbis???

  58. Re:We use it! -Give him a break! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chalmers the Swedish equivalent to MIT? Not really. In some areas, they are good, but in other areas, other schools are better. For example, when it comes to CompSci and related, Linköpings Tekniska Högskola(Linköpings Institute of Technology) and Linköpings Universitet are ranked as the best in Sweden.

    And for your own health's sake, don't say things like that anywhere near students from KTH(Royal Institute of Technology). Or the opposite, for that matter...

  59. Pick Me! by 4of12 · · Score: 2

    Ahem!

    Great work with that new supercluster! You guys are doing great, getting the most teraflops for your dollar!

    Ummm...since you don't need it anymore...would you mind letting me have that ASCI White machine?

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  60. No mention of the vendor Linux Networx by hv · · Score: 1

    It's sad that as much as Bernard Daines has done over the years to create newsworthy press for EE Times that they can't even mention his company has put this together.

    For more information on why this cluster is much more than a bunch of Motherboards and NICs thrown into rows and rows of 42RU racks visit http://www.lnxi.com .

    1. Re:No mention of the vendor Linux Networx by dohcvtec · · Score: 2

      What part of
      The boards are linked by a network assembled by Linux Networx into a clustered system that will have 960 server nodes.
      didn't you understand?

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
  61. More info by dsoltesz · · Score: 2

    Finally this thing made slashdot! I've been trying to tell y'all about this for months, but the editors haven't found it newsworthy - see my journal (7/26 and 10/28) for links to additional articles and the home page for the cluster.

  62. Computer engineering is..... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Funny

    a race between engineers trying to make faster and better computers and Microsoft trying to make more bloated and processor-heavy operating systems. So far, Microsoft is winning.

    1. Re:Computer engineering is..... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      ..and the Unix and unix-like operating systems are following suit. I helped my friend install RedHat 8 on his T22 laptop because he wanted to get back into Unix. Seven years ago when we worked with SunOS, an install could easily fit on a 424MB disk including all X11R4 and OpenLook stuff. He was horrified that we had to carve out more than 2GB for /usr and 100MB for /var (heck RedHat reccommends 384MB for var!!????) and > 80MB for /.

    2. Re:Computer engineering is..... by SlimFastForYou · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I think that whichever operating system can give better native support to clustering will gain a lot of market value. Microsoft, as far as I know is not into clustering yet. Mandrake and the rest of the Open Source community seem to be taking steps in the right direction. Lets just hope that Microsoft doesn't start getting clustering for windows anytime soon :).

    3. Re:Computer engineering is..... by BiOFH · · Score: 2

      Intel has a name for it, "the software spiral". And they are happy as pigs in shit for Microsoft to continue their bloat-ware development at full steam. It just means that people will need more power to run the crap that comes outta Redmond.

      However it seems maybe M$ is losing ground and, thereby, helping facilitate the current market slowdown for new consumer system purchases. There's only so much crap they can cram into Office, I guess. And grandpa can't tell the diff between his PIII and that fancy new P4 so why buy one.

      I dunno if I mean this post to be taken as sarcasm or as academic... it could go either way. It's all certainly true, but also somewhat Heller-ian.

      --
      - I am made of meat.
  63. On the other hand, it beats using a slide rule! by SwedishChef · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the benefits of computers is the ability to solve a problem with iteration rather than trying to come up with a classic "equation" and solve it. When I first entered the job market I had a trusty Pickett N4ES slide rule (and an N600-ES pocket slide rule) and had to first explain a problem with an equation and then solve the equation (from the "inside out" which was why HP calculators with RPG were so popular with engineers when they first came out versus the TI models... but I digress).

    With the introduction of the HP-35 calculator (the "electronic slide rule") we could solve problems by just crunching the numbers at our desks. With the availability of programmable calculators (HP-67/97 and HP-41 - both of which I still use... but then I still use the slide rules too) we could program them to iterate through problems.

    Not as elegant, certainly. But lots more efficient. And I'm sure that most of us have lost some of our old abilities to "see" problems in math... and perhaps some students never really learn that. But the jobs still get done and the tools still keep making it easier. I'm thinking about a Beowulf cluster for our office, actually.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  64. More theoretical than you think by tyler_larson · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yes, I saw this computer before it was delivered to LLNL (hardly off-the-shelf parts, BTW). Very sleek looking, though.

    The interesting thing about this setup is that it doesn't work like the traditional supercomputer. It's more like a community of totally independant computers all willing to work on the same problem.

    The system employs a whole lotta control nodes that spend their whole time trying to assign work out to the worker nodes. The problem then becomes not just parallelizing the work but coordinating the workers. Apparently with this cluster design, it's not all as cut-and-dried as with a "real" supercomputer. They have been able to do some really cool stuff, though. Like, for example, any computer in the cluster can address the memory on any other computer.

    The admins I talked to said they weren't really sure just how fast the system could go, because they could never get it to operate at full capacity. They said the fastest they'd gotten it to go was 4T-Flops, but they figured they were only at %40 theoretical capacity.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
  65. This is the new "Big Iron", get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever heard of the Flat Neighborhood Network topology? Just because you can't figure out how to design a network for a cluster supercomputer, it doesn't mean nobody can. Apparently, you also seem to think you know Cray better than Cray. Not only is Cray now marketing Linux server clusters, it's also planning on building a cluster supercomputer using 16000 AMD Opteron processors. Perhaps you should jump in and inform them that clusters have gone the way of the dodo. Either you're wrong, or many highly paid Cray employees and various PhD's are.

    *applies Ockham's Razor*

    1. Re:This is the new "Big Iron", get used to it by fitten · · Score: 1

      Then call it the "New Big Iron" (which it still isn't). "Big Iron" refers to much more than a POPCs (Pile of PCs). Fault tollerance, hot swap capability, system monitoring, etc.

      Cray is marketing Linux server clusters, you are exactly right. You are wrong if you think these are "Big Iron". The fact that the PO goes to Cray does not make it "Big Iron" and Cray is certainly capable of selling systems that do not classify as "Big Iron".

      POPC Clusters may be the "Popular High Performance Computational Engines", I'll give you that, but they are not "Big Iron".

    2. Re:This is the new "Big Iron", get used to it by sdeath · · Score: 1

      Surprise - that's not what I said.

      What I _said_ was that this is not the new Big Iron, because a cluster of PCs does not qualify. It is not "engineered" in the sense that a Cray is, and I'm willing to bet that if you ask an actual Cray engineer you'll get your ass kicked for implying that some bozo on the street with a half a brain and a few bucks can build a supercomputer that will beat out something designed by a highly-trained engineering team from one of if not the best supercomputing manufacturers and research corporations.

      To address the next point, nothing about the Flat Neighborhood Network makes it suitable for finely-grained problems, or at least as suitable as a "real" supercomputer. Throwing more switches at the problem and being clever with the wiring helps, but not to the extent that it will beat out a well-engineered chunk of Big Iron. Perhaps most importantly, there is a limit on the design of this network imposed by mathematics; discovering the proper "wiring" of the network is a nasty combinatorial problem, and is (according to them) difficult to solve for even 64 processors. Try doing it for 128 and observe the crispy crunchiness of this problem as you gouge out your own eyeballs and go insane. This type of cluster is not fundamentally different from a Beowulf cluster; while the result may well be useful for a certain class of problems, it's not worth getting all gooey about, primarily because there's _nothing new going on here_. Christ, if you want a big supercomputer, look at distributed.net. I bet they'll be able to beat 10 TFLOPS, at least theoretically, and d.n is yesterday's news. It just flat-out doesn't lend itself well to some problems of great interest. Yeah, it'll crack batches of keys just as slick as you please. What it won't do is something like weather modeling, at least not without bringing the Internet to a screeching halt as all available bandwidth is saturated with data requests.

      Looking at the Cray site, they certainly are offering a cluster supercomputer. They're also offering several other types of supercomputer as well. As I said before - a Beowulf cluster is not the solution to all problems. Show us the benchmark on this bad boy for something nice and nasty, like turbulence modeling. I bet that all those processors choke nice and hard on the bottleneck and drop that 10 TFLOPS figure to something much more realistic, like about 1 TFLOP, in this circumstance.

      -SD

      --
      I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
  66. I've seen it by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

    I've seen it, and I have the pictures to prove it. Its a pretty cool system. Wanna see the pics? Email me at jrhelgeson@hotmail.com with the subject of TFLOP and I'll forward the supposedly classified pics to you. The pics were taken at the NOC where the supercomputer was assembled prior to shipment to the Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs.

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
    1. Re:I've seen it by Copid · · Score: 1

      You mean like these? It's not a classified project, dude.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    2. Re:I've seen it by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

      Yup, that's it. The system was housed/assembled at Center 7 in Lindon, Utah (Between Orem & Pleasant Grove, if anyone cares). I know that it's not classified, but they kept it under pretty strict guard and wouldn't let anyone take pictures of it. I'm kinda suprised that those pictures are just posted out on the web. Well, I don't see why I should be suprised.

      --
      Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  67. It's time for raytraced graphics. by master_p · · Score: 1

    I think it is time to start thinking about raytracing in PCs. Imagine 3d environments raytraced in real time!!! now that needs a lot of computing power, and it is serious reason why processing power is not enough yet.

    Raytracing is so much better than simple rendering. Just take a look around the Internet...beautiful raytraced images, almost real, in contrast to the rendered ones we have in current games.

    And of course, there is always DOOM III, IV, etc...

  68. faster if they use Altivec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For simple floating point the G4 is not that fast. For vector operations using Altivec the G4 is very fast.

  69. Re:Mod here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be wonderful, except you can't metamod Overrated moderations. =(

  70. Give me hundred million billion trillion teraflops by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    I'll easily use up all that computing power with my single program that simulates single cell and multi cell bacteria colonies and that uses mutation to create more specialized and complicated creatures.

  71. "Cluster" - too many meanings by truth_revealed · · Score: 2

    The term "cluster" has been used in so many contexts that it no longer has any meaning. OpenMOSIX cluster. MPI cluster. Disk cluster. Web server cluster. Is the definition of cluster simply any group of computers either on a LAN or the internet performing vaguely related tasks?

    1. Re:"Cluster" - too many meanings by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      ... running in parallel to complete one overall task would be a closer definition.

      A web cluster is a bunch of webservers all serving the same / slightly different things working together from the same database / files / etc.

      A "cluster" computer would be a large set of computers that all act as one big computer.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  72. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (+1, Troll)

  73. the whole cluster / buzz word debate by zaqattack911 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, just because you write together a room full of computers, it doesn't mean much.

    Sure if you specifically write an app to do parallel computing over fibre-channel nodes, and you have all these networked computers work on the same problem, it might turn out what seems like 10-TFLOPS. But it's NOT a mainframe.

    Hell lets say we call all the machines doing SETI@HOME a cluster? How many TFLOPS do you think that could do? or IS doing? By "buzz word" logic Seti@home network might be one of the fastest mainframes in the world.

    --zuchini

  74. Is this one "Pink" by neognomic · · Score: 1

    Is that old news as it was posted in July on CNET, here which reportedly had 962 nodes and was/is an "Evolocity" cluster.

    Is this one for the sister lab(LANL):
    A powerful new 2,048-processor, $6 million Linux supercomputer is being built for the Los Alamos National Laboratory to run unclassified analyses and ... (NetworX built it with 959 nodes and 2050 processors) in-addition-to "Pink" named after "Pink"
    -or- it it "Pink"
    -or- is the post about another one that going to LLNL and has nothing to do with "Pink"?

    Is that 2, 3 or 4 this year?

    This is getting strange.

    Extreme Linux at http://www.extremelinux.org/ seems to have vaporized (behind the LANL firewall, I suppose).

    It also seems kind of odd that LinuxBIOS is not mentioned in these articles and is, IMO, a critical part of the builds as well as being an outstandingly innovative use of the Linux kernel.

    I think I need a Beowulf cluster to figure this out and tell me ?WHY? LLNL and LANL are suddenly in need of more SC's that are in addition to the ones that they already have. :?)

  75. Interesting... by cr0sh · · Score: 2
    I think the interesting part of this story seems to be that instead of standard PCI network cards (they talk about GigE being too slow), they are using Bus Cards - which I am taking to mean some form of SCSI Bus cards.

    In other words, the computers are networked via high-speed SCSI links, to increase bandwidth and thoroughput. I have always thought this was possible, and had probably already been done, but this is the first time I have seen such a thing written up about (in other words, it probably has been done in the past, and I just didn't read about it).

    I am thinking the SCSI cards here are being used in a "poor-man's MYRINET" fashion, in order to get past the bottleneck of ethernet NICs and switches. Now, if they only made (or, maybe they do?) a SCSI "switch" (are those called crossbar switches?) for the thing, you could go to a star topology instead...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  76. Re:fp by Dekonstructor · · Score: 1
    Hello!! I am very much wanting to make MMORPG gaming good too. Damaged Studios: Living the future of the future of MMORPG.

    and be a slashdot editor as well.

    Can you help???

  77. this already exists by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    It's called usenet.

  78. Re:imagine the lack of gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that and no gameplay, just like all the other new FPS-games that are coming..

  79. Or... by Cybrr · · Score: 1

    Search for Incredible Coincidence at home
    Determine the structure of the Universe!

    --
    Why did GEAR crush RDP?
  80. Re:I can see the adds now..-It's ASCI, not ASCII by LazLong · · Score: 1

    It's ASCI, as in Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative (that somehow has mutated into "Advanced Simulation and Computing Program). http://www.llnl.gov/asci/

  81. And in other news... by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

    ...Attorney General John Ashcroft is holding billionaire Bill Gates without the benefit of a lawyer for allegedly "subsidizing terrorist activities." This news comes on the heels of the discovery of many thousand X-Boxen, sold by Mr. Gates at below manufacturing cost, in use in a massive Mandrake CLIC cluster. UN weapons inspectors believe the cluster to have been used in the manufacture of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and cited the presence of a copy of "Halo."
    Federal authorities say they will seek the death penalty, but many observers think it is more likely that they will settle for a generous campaign contribution.

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  82. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    A gangster assembled an engineer, a chemist, and a physicist. He explained
    that he was entering a horse in a race the following week and the three
    assembled guys had the job of assuring that the gangster's horse would win.
    They were to reconvene the day before the race to tell the gangster how they
    each propose to ensure a win. When they reconvened the gangster started with
    the engineer:

    Gangster: OK, Mr. engineer, what have you got?
    Engineer: Well, I've invented a way to weave metallic threads into the saddle
    blanket so that they will act as the plates of a battery and provide
    electrical shock to the horse.
    G: That's very good! But let's hear from the chemist.
    Chemist: I've synthesized a powerful stimulant that disolves
    into simple blood sugars after ten minutes and therefore
    cannot be detected in post-race tests.
    G: Excellent, excellent! But I want to hear from the physicist before
    I decide what to do. Physicist?
    Physicist: Well, first consider a spherical horse in simple harmonic motion...

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...