Virginia Tech Announces Supercomputer Plans

CousinVinnie writes "Previously noted in this Slashdot story, the administration of Virginia Tech has announced they're puchasing 1100 G5's (another story) in hopes to build a top-10 supercomputer by October 1. Tech will be spending $5.2 million over five years on the project, which should help it pull in more research money." Maybe VT can use the new computers to beef up their web site.

Comments

Re:This is quite cool but...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Itanium: er, um, we have a new architecture! I think RedHat has a port to it.

G5: We have a PowerPc system that has been extended to use 64 bits. Your old software will run. Your new software will run faster. We have MacOSx, BSD, and Linux available, natively compiled.

There is also something to be said for the G5's parallel memory busses. It divides the ram in half, each half feeding 32 bits of the processor. You could theoretically keep your instructions on one side and data on the other, and pipeline the snot out of it.

Ever changing focus shift..

[Rinikusu]

Anyone get the feeling that Apple might be pulling a Be, Inc and is trying to pull off a focus-shift?

Remember Be, the "multimedia" OS turned "Internet Appliance". Remember the death of Be. (damn, that stings. I miss the BeOS.)

Now witness Apple:
For decades, seemingly the darling of the press-production (DTP) world, catering to artists of all magnitudes, it was the computer you used to create real, bona-fide art. It attracted the freaks, the hippies, the art chicks. For many people, this was unnerving. Different people get "different" looks.
Now who's Apple targetting?
With OS X, I'm thinking geeks. We're different people, too, but in a, well, different manner. Instead of the artists, Apple's going for traditional suits, the realm of IT. It may be a matter of sheer survival that Apple penetrates here, because they don't stand a chance in these days of "homogenous" work environments.. Out with Apple (even if it works) and in with Dell WinXP machines! Linux faces the same dilemna, although Linux has some other benefits/detriments for it's widespread adoption. If Apple can show it's worth in the server room (just like Linux is doing), then maybe, just maybe, they'll start looking at Apple on the corporate desktop (just like Linux is doing).
Now, the idea of catering to suits is somewhat.. frightening. The whole damn market is different. They don't care about "look and feel", they care about numbers (see economic downturn, outsourcing to India, massive layoffs, H1B abuse, etc). This means Apple will have to change from being "cool" to utilitarian. But wait, I think I just painted myself into a corner here... Wasn't that the point of Apple? To be a tool and not an obstacle? Instead of creating computer art, we're now creating databases? Maybe Apple is on to something here...

Re:Overpriced G5s

[11223]

OK, a few relevant points here:

• Myrinet sucks. No, really. It does. It eats CPU when sending data. It generally does not perform as well as Infiniband. It has higher latency. Once you start using this for real work (outside of what are known as "embarassingly parallel" problems, which are fine with 10baseT), those factors will play into your performance to a huge degree.
• AMD fanboys, take note: The G5 does have superior floating-point hardware, for either double precision superscalar or vector single precision work. If they're doing floating point the G5 is a clear win.
• The memory bus on the G5 is a bit better than on the Opterons - especially once you start doing threaded work, the dual unidirectional buses essentially allow cache transfers at the same time as memory transfers, and a whole bunch of other possibilities.
• Lastly, what are you smoking? The only way an AMD becomes competitive with a G5 (machine to machine here) is if you build the AMD yourself and leave out the stuff the G5 has in it. Are you suggesting that Virginia Tech build 1100 Opteron, no, 4400 Opteron systems (you said 4x, not me!) themselves? That's crazy. They want somebody else to build and test the machines, and that somebody to be responsible when they fail. Of course such a real-world advantage has little to do with the bubble most /.ers live in, because they build their Athlons themselves. Perhaps the reality distortion field merely applies to introducing reality to people who have never seen it before.

Re:Apple ... supercomputer...?

[Phroggy]

the fan configuration will make it extrordinarily loud

Apple specifically engineered these systems to be quiet - the compartments are set up the way they are so they can get maximum airflow with minimal blowing. Just because you think "loud" when you hear nine fans doesn't mean they're actually any louder than anything else. You're spreading FUD.

it's built to cater to the end user, not to the embedded machine market.

Perhaps your definition of "embedded" is different from mine, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit this application. This is a supercomputer cluster. However you are correct that these machines were designed to be desktop computers. Apparently that's not all they're good for.

Many companies build physically smaller machines that still pack a lot of power,

Yeah, so does Apple, but these are faster.

or sell parts to allow someone to design their own layout in a chassis.

If Virginia Tech wants to order 1,100 of them, don't you think Apple would be flexible if this was a concern?

Remember, individual cases, power supplies, and the like become way overkill in such a large computer, and it would probably be cheaper to convert electricity once for a large section of the computer, supplying 12v, 5v, and 3.3v without each computer converting itself.

This is an interesting point I hadn't considered. Feeding 110v into each of 1,100 individual power supplies can't be as energy or heat efficient as what you describe. However, it's possible that they will actually be doing this - I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere.

Another consideration - apparently VT was pressed for time and they needed something that would be available quickly; Apple was able to deliver quickly. This may explain why they'd be more inclined to use stock off-the-shelf boxes instead of something more customized.

Re:PowerMac G5s?

[fork420]

Perhaps they have entered the Reality Distortion Field (TM).

Apple's platform will probably work here, and once they prove it does, they will open a new segment of buyers, and gain plenty of positive attention. Apple's (recent) record suggests they will exceed expectations.

As to the cost...the good PR that they can derive from a working G5 supercomputer is easily worth $10m on hardware. At the end of the quarter it's hardly noticable to a company sitting on $3,500,000,000.00 in cash.

Apple gets to show MSFT they can scale OS X way past Windows. IBM gets to show Intel what it thinks of the Blue Lightning License arrangement, and Apple and IBM, by virtue of being together, get so give MSFT the finger...from way up the (top500.org) list. Not bad for their first try at this.

...and think about it from Jobs' perspective: This will be the biggest "Apple Computer" ever made. His ego can't handle this thing not kicking ass.

--
Don't forget that Pixar's always looking for high power hardware and they've got lots of new money.