Slashdot Mirror


Time For A Cray Comeback?

Boone^ writes "The New York Times has an article (free reg. req.) talking about Cray Inc.'s recent resurgence in the realm of supercomputing. It discusses a bit of Cray's decline when the Cold War ended, "the occupation" under SGI, and the rebirth of the company after the Tera (now Cray Inc.) purchase. Recently Cray Inc. has been shipping their vector-based Cray X1 machine, designing ASCI Red Storm, and recently was one of 3 (also Sun, IBM) to win a large DARPA contract (PDF link) to design and develop a PetaFlops machine by 2010. Could Cray Inc. be poised for a comeback? Wall Street seems to think so."

9 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Ha! Wall Street has more confidence in SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
  2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong ... by anzha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are other uses too. Consider: the weather guys that are working on the global warming and other climate modeling want a 500 petaflop sustained speed, massive memory machine to get the granularity that they want.

    BTW, what's the 15 YO machine? I can't think of any...certainly not ones that are still in the Top 500. Hell, the ones I worked on 10 years ago, you can nearly buy the floppage on the desktop now...

    As an interesting aside, the DARPA contract is out in part because they think the traditional drivers in computing speed are going to peter out around 2010...the implications of that are definitely interesting, no?

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong ... by agurkan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nuclear simulations are used to see if the warheads are still effective after not being used for long times, not to see if they'll wipe out a city right after they are produced.

    --
    ato
  4. Re:explain by virtual_mps · · Score: 5, Interesting
    MTBF: Mean time between failures. Commodity hardware goes kaputt much more often. A cluster capable of teraflop performance of custom hardware tends to need constant and evil levels of care and feeding: ie you better have a grad student on roller blades.

    Hahahaha. Have you ever actually run a supercomputer? They tend to have much higher failure rates then normal servers. Couple of reasons: first, they push the envelope of a given technology. The sweet spot for stability is not the leading edge. Second, they're not nearly as well tested as mainstream hardware. On a platform with thousands of installations you're much less likely to run into a problem nobody has seen before than you are on a platform with only dozens of installations.
  5. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong ... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong I'm all about nuclear testing being done in 1's and 0's instead of in the ocean or in the desert, but how big of a bomb do you really need when it's estimated theres enough nukes to blast the entire land surface of the earth 3 times over.

    Well, the earth is over 2/3rds covered with water, and now we have the technology to reach the moon, mars, venus and beyond. Remember the spectical when a comet hit Jupiter? Just imagine a Beowulf of those, but really big nukes instead :D

    On a more serious and less morbid note, I bet some other uses exist in physics, medicine and even cosmology. I even hear where they compare 'potential' cures for diseases using computer modeling to design drugs that we don't yet know how to make, good old biotech. You are correct that yes, this IS a very very limited market, but when you sell them for a billion bucks each, you don't need to match Dell's volume to make a profit. I wouldn't be suprised if the technology leads to some advancements in our pitiful micro world as well.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  6. Before we all get sentimental... by taradfong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...isn't 'Cray' today about as 'Cray' as the company that now owns 'Atari'? What's left besides the name of the original company?

    --
    Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
  7. Re:explain by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, almost. Let's say I have a plane that can accomodate 100 people and does NY->London in 6 hours.

    My problem is that I have to move 1000 people from NY to London

    Now I can either:

    1. I can buy a plane that is 20 time faster, 20 times more expensive. That's the supercomputer
    2. I can buy 9 other planes (same as mine) and accomodate the same results as in 1 for less than half the price (I'll let you do the math). That's the cluster.
    3. I can buy a plane that has a capacity of 1000 people. That's the parallel supercomputer. But if that one can do the deal for my specific problem, it proves to be not that flexible if my problem changes (ie: 500 people NY->London and 500 people from NY->LA).

    That's the power of the bewolf cluster!!!

  8. The trick is keeping ahead of the commodity guys by putaro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Supercomputing per se died because Intel, DEC, IBM/Motorola had a lot more money to throw at speeding things up than the supercomputing community.

    In the 70's up until the early 90's it was possible to build a custom CPU out of discrete logic that ran significantly faster than the available microprocessors. Cray was able to push their clock cycle down into the nanosecond range through clever design. However, a 1ns clock rate == 1GHz. You can go buy that multi-million dollar CPU for a couple of hundred bucks in today's market.

    In order for superocmputing to be viable you have to be able to provide quantum leap performance above the commodity hardware AND keep your cost/performance ratio in line as well.

    The CRAY-1 came out with a clock speed of about 80 MHz and vector processing and high memory bandwidth at a time when mainstream systems like the PDP 11/70 were running at about 7MHz with a 1MB/s memory bus. Microprocessors weren't even't a joke compared with the Cray.

    The new Japanese NEC supercomputer came with a price tag of about $160 million if I remember correctly (some estimates say that it took $1G in research funding) and hits 35 TFlops (sustained). #3 on the Top 500 supercomputers list is a Beowulf cluster with 2304 processors coming in at 7.6 TFlops (sustained). Even figuring $2000/processor + interconnect, that puts the Beowulf cluster at around $5 million or 1/32 of the cost for 1/5th of the performance (roughly speaking).

    There are other factors, of course, but the key is that for the supercomputer to stay ahead of the microprocessor a boatload of funding is needed for the supercomputer and the payoff just isn't really there. If it was a lot more supercomputer companies would still be in business.

  9. Re:Icon is back by CausticWindow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember a story from a NSA contract worker.

    In the early days of Cray, he and many others were wondering how they could keep things running, considering that their official budgets only showed ten or so sales per year.

    Until he got the tour of the NSA computer plant, where they had a hall the size of two football fields, filled with Crays.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life