Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supercomputing: Raw Power vs. Massive Storage

Posted by Hemos on from the changing-the-playing-field dept.

securitas writes "The NY Times reports that a pair of Microsoft researchers are challenging the federal policy on funding supercomputers. Gordon Bell and Jim Gray argue that the money would be better spent on massive storage instead of ultra-fast computers because they believe today's supercomputing centers will be tomorrow's superdata centers. They advocate building cheap Linux-based Beowulf clusters (PCs in parallel) instead of supercomputers." NYTimes free reg blah blah.

9 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Ny Times free reg?! by krisp · · Score: 5, Informative

    No Registration Required

    Just use the google link!

  2. Bell and Gray not just MS researchers... by soboroff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gordon Bell and Jim Gray are not just "a pair of Microsoft researchers". They are two of the biggest names in high-performance computing. Gordon Bell awards, anyone?

  3. Partner = Slashdot by Zach+Garner · · Score: 5, Informative

    You could at least use partner=SLASHDOT

  4. Re:Microsoft recommending Linux Beowolf cluster? by Bad+Dude · · Score: 4, Informative

    By rewriting existing scientific programs, they say, researchers will be able to get powerful computing from inexpensive clusters of personal computers that are running the free Linux software operating system

    That's pretty clearly mentioning Linux.

  5. They DO mention Linux by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    By rewriting existing scientific programs, they say, researchers will be able to get powerful computing from inexpensive clusters of personal computers that are running the free Linux software operating system.
    "The supercomputer vendors are adamant that I am wrong," Dr. Bell said. "But the Beowulf is a Volkswagen and these people are selling trucks."

    All the people who are responding saying they don't mention Linux didn't read the second page.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. Username/Password by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 4, Informative

    I saw that it could be google too, but anyhow, I made a username/password for y'all:

    slashdot124
    slashdot

    Be wary however, I registered as a North Korean military R&D official under high salary.

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
  7. supercomputers and the Nuclear Test Ban by elwinc · · Score: 4, Informative
    One of the big reasons for using supercomputers over the past decade or more has been to simulate nuclear explosions. When we (the USA) simulate weapons instead of testing them, it allows us to lead by example when we argue for a ban on nuclear tests. Because simulation is technically challenging, it slows down nuclear proliferation. It's a creative form of deterrence.

    All this for the price of a few supercomputers every year. And the market for supercomputers pushes several technologies; for example, high speed interconnect and gallium arsenide, and sets the bar for high performance silicon. Pretty good deal, doncha think?

    But now the Moron-in-Chief wants to bring back nuclear testing. (pardon me, 'nookyuler.' Bush can't be wrong about something as simple as pronunciation, can he?). Farewell to deterrence. Farewell to common sense...

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  8. Re:Nice by anzha · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mod this guy up. He's really telling the truth!

    Loosely coupled clusters like PDSF are great for work like what the high energy physics people do, like SNO.

    However, somethings work better on vector architectures such as climate models and fusion work: there is a reason why the Spanish Met troops bought a Cray. Additionally, some chemistry, many fusion and several other codes work best on vector architectures.

    There guys presented their global warming work where at my job. They've developed their climate code though as a parallel one. See here. One of the places that they have been running is on seaborg, an IBM RS/6000 with over 6k and near 7k processors.

    Interestingly, the PCM guys presented what they wanted for an uber'puter. While it had massive amounts of storage, it was also a 500 *PETAFLOP* SUSTAINED PERFORMANCE machine.

    *clickety clack* That'd be something like 166,666,666 Athlons. IDK of any interconnects that handle that. Can you imagine being an admin? Better hope you're good on rollerblades zipping to and fro replacing those oh-so-reliable commodity disks and CPUs...even if you have a .05% failure rate, that's still too damn much. As an admin, that'd be a huge waste of time. It'd also wreck havoc on the guys running stuff.

    Or is that what grad students are for? To attempt such a silly thing and then admin it? ;)

    Seriously tho. To get from here to their, we're going to need some exotic techs...not just more 'attack of the killer micros'.

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  9. Re:I disagree respectfully. by trog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Imagine what a cluster of 700 to 1,000 blade servers running the latest Intel Xeon CPU's can do now! =)

    Actually, it would be a very crappily-performing cluster. Blade servers are designed with two major goals - CHEAP and SMALL. Blade servers are engineered for high availability applications (think webserver farm).

    Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's the optimal solution. It amazes me when I see vendors selling blade server clusters.

    (Disclaimer: I work as an engineer with a company with builds Linux based clusters for universities and labs)