Slashdot Mirror
Supercomputers To Move To Specialization?
lucasw writes "The Japan Earth Simulator outperformed a computer at Los Alamos (previously the world's fastest) by a factor of three while using fewer, more specialized processors and advanced interconnect technology. This spawned multiple government reports that many suspected would ask for more funding in the U.S. for custom supercomputer architectures and less emphasis on clustering commodity hardware. One report released yesterday suggests a balanced approach."
Ignoring size, how does the cost of a cluster of fewer, highly specialized computers (with special interconnects, etc.) compare with that of a cluster of more, less specialized computers?
Teraflops per dollar is important, let's not forget that.
The Japan Earth Simulator outperformed a computer at Los Alamos (previously the world's fastest) by a factor of three while using fewer, more specialized processors...
What is the difference between processor designed to simulate earthquakes (et al) and an ordinary, off-the-shelf processor? I mean - so they optomized floating point operations. Is that it?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If you're going to have a supercomputer do one thing, of course specialize it. An Earth simulation surely has a set number of formulae whose calculations are to be optimized as much as possible, even to the hardware level.
But if you want a versitile, general-purpose supercomputer, why not go with the clustering solution?
Cray is back and getting back into the government contract game. Suprisingly, they are doing it just as the DOD is realizing that they need specialized hardware like they used to when Cray was one of their best suppliers. Look for little ol Cray to be back in the black real quick, and pick up a few shares now.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
The main area in which we saw benefit was switching from the Portland Group Fortran Compiler to the Intel Fortran Compiler, which cut the timestep (simulation time/real time) nearly in half.
Every cluster in the department is assembled from commodity x86 components. Groups here have been moving from proprietary Unix architectures to Linux/x86 systems and clusters. Our group started out on RS/6000s, then moved to SPARC, and is now moving to x86. In terms of price/performance there really is no comparison.
As for TCO, the lifetimes of clusters here are relatively short, one or two years at the most. Thus a high initial outlay cannot be set by lower cost of operation.
Definitely a really huge super-computer would be neat to have but honestly are they putting the ones we already have to good use?
From what I've heard [anecdotally] computers like the earth simulator go vastly under utilized for the most part.
So given that most nations [including the US] have budget problems specially concerning education couldn't people think of better uses for money?
And before anyone throws a "it's the technology of it" argument my way, I'd like to add that if anything I'd rather have the money spent on researching how to make high performance low power processors [and memory/etc] instead. E.g. an Athlon XP 2Ghz that runs at 15W would be wicked more impressive than a 50,000 processor super computer that runs a highly efficient idle loop 99% of the time.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
It took Sputnik to kickstart our spacemindedness; I for one consider it sad that a "tremendous amount of interest" -- and the funding that comes with it -- in high-performance computing seems only to have arisen/regenerated with the influence of competitive international politics. Are we really so hardly advanced that our respective national egos are still the driving force behind enthusiasm, financial or otherwise, in certain areas of science?
I don't really see that as bad. Yes, it may look like pure ego, but the space race gave us so much that filtered into the commercial/private sector. From advanced computers to Velcro(tm). From my perspective, being the most advanced nation in as many areas as possible is a good defense, both economically and in a homeland security sense.
Frankly, I don't want the fastest computer chips on the desktop to be designed by a company in another country (even if Intel makes them outside of the US) and I would rather that the cutting edge, be cut here, in my native country. I am sure other people in other countries feel the same, that pushed all of us to new heights. In the end, the technologies are shared anyway. Most anyone in the world can buy Intel chips, for example.
If no one cared who could race a bicycle the fastest, Lance Armstrong would be just some guy who had cancer. Instead, our desire to compete and excell and outdo our neighbors has benefited EVERYONE a great deal. It can bring out the bad side from time to time, but the benefits far outweigh the costs. This urge to compete and win is not unique to America by any means, it is part of being human: man the animal.
I say bring on the computer chip wars: Lets all compete, Japanese, Americans, Europeans, Russians, come one come all. In the end, we will all benefit, no matter who has the bragging rights for a day.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
If you'd like to see what these people are up to for yourself, here is a link to their website. Lots of performance data, lists of projects, etc.
Speaking as one who has played Civilisation until the late hours of the morning, I can confidently say that the country with the most advanced technology, wins.
That term makes a lot of people uncomfortable: win.
People assume that when you have winners, you must have losers. While this is true in Civilization, it need not be true in life. It is true that when America innovates, it may benefit more, but everyone else that uses the product can benefit as well.
America put more money into developing the Internet, through DARPA, starting in 1969, and many of the companies (not all) that build equipment for using the Internet, from computers to routers, are American companies. But this has created tons of jobs in China and other countries, sparked competition in Europe and the Pacific Rim, and has created many jobs along the way. America certainly didn't do it alone, but it was the Cold War and the space race that fueled much of DARPA, and now, in its adolesence, the internet is just as accessible in England, France, Japan, Brazil or America, and its getting better every year for poorer countries. In this respect, there are winners, and those who are doing better.
We win in that we develop the most technology, but since it shared, there are very few losers. Some have a problem with the fact that we benefit more, at least initially. Some will always have problems when one group benefits more. I just don't share their world view. I think it was Winston Churchill that said "Capitalism is wealth distributed unequally. Socialism is misery shared equally." (something like that)
Like most of us, I have no issue with sharing technology and helping others, but I still want to be on the winning team.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Would you rather they simulate weapons or resume detonation testing of new designs?? The fact is the US has a VERY large and ever aging supply of weapons, most of the cycle time so far from the ASCI projects has gone towards stewardship of the existing crop of weapons, making sure that the stockpiles are safe and also that they will be effective(if god forbid they should be needed). Also, reduced consumption is the only thing that will reduce our environmental "problems". Personally I think anyone who thinks the US has much of an environmental problem needs to get out of LA/New York/whichever big city they live in. I have spent a lot of time enjoying the national parks of this great country and I can tell you that there are a lot of pristine wilderness areas and a lot of generally green land here (in fact the US landmass is one of the least densly populated non-desert areas in the world).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.