Slashdot Mirror
Los Alamos to Use AMD's Opteron in Linux Clusters
nuke-alwin writes "eWeek is reporting that Los Alamos National Laboratory announced it will use more than 3,300 Opteron chips in two of its Linux clusters. According to the article 'The key to Opteron, as it tries to gain traction not only against Intel Corp.'s 64-bit Itanium chip but also its 32-bit Xeon offerings, is its ability to run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications equally well.'"
Intel can't compete with the Opteron on merits alone. It will be interesting to see what they try next.
Yeah, and you also need to reboot your Pentiums to run 16-bit code.
It is just the state of a flag in a control register. In particular, see page 68 of
AMD's Opteron System Programming Guide.
64-bit mode is enabled with the flip of bit 8 of the EFER Model-Specific Register. Otherwise it defaults to 32-bit mode. OS designers should test/set this bit just before running a thread in the scheduler, or jumping into system code as it can only be modified by code running in ring 0. This is the same way people treated the Virtual-8086 (16-bit) mode bit in CR0. In fact, you can combine the protected-mode, virtual-8086 mode, and "long mode" bits to have a variety of register-size and memory addressing modes per thread.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
...is that AMD opened their platform well enough to the LinuxBIOS developers while Intel basically told them to screw off and live with EFI. Here is what Ron Minnich had to say earlier on the LinuxBIOS mailing list.
What he *actually* said was, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Granted, it's debatable as to how much initiative he took in its creation, but he was in fact involved in legislation and funding that helped to shape it.
Whenever I see this twisting of words and facts perpetuated, it reminds me of the fools who just can't say nuclear (it's "noo-clee-ar", not "noo-kyoo-lar", damn it!!!).
Loading...
One of the very serious problem related to building
Itanium clusters is their very high power
consumption and the associated heat removal problem.
It's okay for a few server in a room, but for
cluster trying to pack boxes is a key point of the
architecture. Apparently Opteron is not too bad
since there are dual Opteron in 1U server format
design commonly available, and it was overheating
that would be known by now, but for the Itanium(2)
cluster I know off, they never managed to get the
full cluster running without bringing either the
power supply down or the air conditionning down.
Itanium 1 was notoriously power hungry and
a common source of joke about this, Itanium 2 is
certainly better in this respect, but the clock
speed has been multiplied by nearly 3, I really
doubt they could compensate the initial problem
enough to get the new high speed chip to get back
to a decent consumption.
On the other hand Opteron seems quite better
probably getting the benefit of all the power
consumption research that AMD did during the 90's
where AMD chip were at the time consuming significantly more than Intel equivalents.
Now if someone has the time to make a search :-)
for the advertized power consumption of both chip
that would be a really interesting post
Daniel