Slashdot Mirror


Drooling Over VA Tech's 1100-Node G5 Cluster

Mr. Slurpee writes "Virginia Tech's 1100-node dual 2 GHz Apple G5 Terascale Cluster is getting racked up and ready to roar. If you're a penniless geek like me, at least there's some tech pr0n for us to drool over. There's 1100 of them ... think they could part with one?" Update: 09/22 02:55 GMT by T : Matt submits a link to this full mirror of the photos, writing "The page owner's comment on the original mirror being taken down due to bandwidth? 'Bring it on!'"

28 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. think massive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine a beowulf clu...oh, wait.

    1. Re:think massive by lastninja · · Score: 5, Funny

      They should have bought 237 more G5s, that would have been so 1337.

      --
      John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
  2. It's slow now. Complete mirror. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    here.

  3. 1100 reality distortion field generators by jtnishi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh God.

    Imagining each one of those came with just a little bit of Steve Job's Reality Distortion Field, someone from NASA might want to head over there and make sure that some kind of tear in space/time doesn't occur right there. With that many G5s, we don't know what level of destruction could happen.

  4. I try to look at the slides and what do I get? by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This presentation contains content that your browser may not be able to show properly. This presentation was optimized for more recent versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer.

    Why make a website "optimized for IE", when the content of the said website is of interest to people who are probably not running IE or Windows?

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
  5. Hm. by ixt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I really would like to know is how they install and configure all those machines. Their method of doing that will be very useful for even the (relatively) smaller networks that don't necessarily have to be clusters.

    For example, I've yet to figure out a way to effectively get a computer lab with 30 eMacs installed and configured the same way. DHCP/Netboot is slow because we only have 100mbit switches. Split CD images are slow, and Jaguar doesn't yet have free software that does that yet (besides the dd of course). I'm not sure how to keep them all updated either.

    I really hope they describe how they maintain the operating system on them.

    1. Re:Hm. by tecnobabble · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I just ran into this problem with a new eMac lab at my school, we set it up in about 4 hours. :)

      Easy way to do it.

      1. Set up 1 machine how you want it.
      2. Get a bunch of firewire cables.
      3. Hook the eMac's together using the cables. (If you can't reach with the cables, get some portable firewire drives, iPods work well with this too.)
      4. Use Carbon Copy Cloner 2.2 (http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html) and move down the line of machines until they're all the same.
      5. Go in and change HD, Network, etc names.
      6. Smile because you just did something in 4-5 hours that it would take Windows users a week to do.

      If you have questions, feel free to email (sethmath @ mac.com) me about it. I can walk you through if necessary.

    2. Re:Hm. by Benley · · Score: 5, Informative

      I run a lab with about 50 macs (assorted models, from 350mhz iMacs through 800mhz eMacs, and a few 1ghz G4's) - I spent a good bit of time on a solution, and it's really not as hard as this thread makes it sound.

      First, I build one system and set it up *Exactly* the way I want all the others to be. I have some run-once script voodoo to set the IP address of each machine based on its Mac address, and to munge some ByHost user preferences for the built-in guest account. Then, I use Carbon Copy Cloner">Carbon Copy Cloner to create an image of that machine's hard drive.

      Once I have an image of the machine, I use NetRestoreNetRestore (by the same guy as CCC) to create a netboot image that will automatically install the master machine's HD image onto each client.

      I am fortunate to have a MacOS X Server machine on which to run the NetBoot server - which is independent of the subnet's master DHCP server, I might add - but it is possible to netboot macs from other Unix machines with a bit of patching to dhcpd.

      Anyhow, all in all I don't find it any more difficult to netinstall Macs than it is to do the same for Windows machines. Building the master clone image is time consuming and annoying, but it always will be for any platform.

      Feel free to email me if you are interested in my machine setup voodoo script. I had to borrow some binaries from OS X Server in order to make it work. It's slowly turning into something useful as I add more functionality to it.

  6. Re:Why G5s? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's why. Some of the more pertinent points:

    Dell - too expensive [one of the reasons for the project being so "hush hush" was that dell was exploring pricing options during bidding]

    Sun (sparc) - required too many processors, also too expensive

    IBM/AMD (opteron) - required twice the number of processors and was twice the price in the desired configuration; had no chassis available

    HP (itanium) - ditto

    Apple (IBM PPC970) - system available with chassis for lowest price

  7. Re:space.. by entartete · · Score: 4, Funny

    the full sized cases will provide greater resistance to all the spoooge that will be sprayed over them by spontaneous orgasms of the hordes of apple fans comeing to worship before the mother of all apples.

  8. Re:Interesting... A Light Just Clicked On... by entartete · · Score: 5, Funny

    we got the dual processor g5 we ordered in at the university I work at and have had it for a while. I guess apple is really pushing to make the institutional customers happy. and if a university gets a g5 dozens of students can play with it and drool over it and become filled with g5 lust while if one regular customer gets one they'll just hide in their room mumbling about 'my preciousssss' and fondling it and that's not very good advertising and is sorta creepy.

  9. drool over this, baby! by F2F · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pink at LANL has the following:

    1024 nodes
    2048 cpus
    1024 power cables
    1024 Myrinet network cards
    2048 fiber cables (8.8 miles)
    3072 Myrinet switch ports
    4096 sticks of RAM (2 Terabytes)
    7168 fans
    1 hard drive
    1 CDROM drive

    Not only do they have pictures of its assembly, they have movies.

    Check the web page for more stats and better quality movies.

    Oh, yes, it's unclassified :)

  10. NetBoot is slow? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't actually tried it yet since I don't have access to enough Macs, but I imagine it's something you would start and let happen overnight... I mean, that's more or less how Apple does it in their own stores, wipe and restore overnight, I think. Or at least after the store closes and before the next opening day.

  11. Video cards... by stevens · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope they were able to run these without video cards. I can't imagine 1100 brand-new sweet ATI video cards sitting idle for years...

  12. Re:Expensive processor vs. inexpensive processors by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you read the link in one of the earlier comments, you would see that:
    Slide Four
    Choosing the Right Architechture

    cost vs. performance (purely)
    total cost $5.2 million includes system itself, memory, storage, and communication fabrics
    one of the cheapest systems of its kind

    Slide Five
    Architectural Options

    Dell - too expensive [one of the reasons for the project being so "hush hush" was that dell was exploring pricing options during bidding]
    Sun (sparc) - required too many processors, also too expensive
    IBM/AMD (opteron) - required twice the number of processors and was twice the price in the desired configuration; had no chassis available
    HP (itanium) - ditto
    Apple (IBM PPC970) - system available with chassis for lowest price
    --
    "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  13. Re:Expensive processor vs. inexpensive processors by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reliability.
    No one in their right mind would try to argue that one couldn't build a home-grown system for less. But with optical ports? FW 400 and 800? Gigabit ethernet? USB 2.0? And with said home-grown machines, when the NIC goes bad in one, or a memory slot goes bad in another, who do you call? The NIC or mainboard manufacturer? So you what, keep a list of all your machines, give 'em i.d. numbers or whatever, itemize the guts and who made what (mainboard, NIC, RAM, CPU, HDD, etc.) of each, and hope to make sense of it all when stuff starts to fail? Me, if I was in charge of it, it would make sense to me to farm it all out to one company, and then when something breaks there is one number that I have to call.
    Also, lets not forget that this is probably going to be used for research, and if it involves vectors, then AltiVec is the SIMD for you.

    Of course, being human, my opinion is suspect.

    (tig)

    --
    Ignorance and prejudice and fear
    Walk hand in hand
  14. my first tech pr0n by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ah, vivid memories of the cover of Softtalk magazine, with a picture of the Apple II assembly line with hundreds of machines. Just imagine... 200 * 64k = 12.5 MEGABYTES! That would take 90 floppies to store all that data!

    Now some statistic pr0n:
    There were about 5 1/2 million Apple IIs sold, so at an average of 64k each (just a guess), that would be 343 GB of memory total. Adding up the couple of computers in the office (it's a 4 person company), we're about 1/70 of the way there. Assuming 2 140K floppy drives per computer, that would be 1.5TB of disk storage -- that would be 6 hard drives, and they would occupy less space than a single pair of old floppy drives.

  15. Re:Why G5s? by McAddress · · Score: 5, Funny

    Truly amazing, how many of you ever thought you would live ling enough to see Apple win a contract based on price?

  16. Re:Expensive processor vs. inexpensive processors by WasterDave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM/AMD (opteron) - required twice the number of processors and was twice the price in the desired configuration; had no chassis available

    Y'know, I saw this presentation a few days ago. I wasn't there, I saw it on the net. Anyway, this bullet point stuck out then - like, what are they talking about?

    For one, how come it required twice the number of processors? From the benchmarks I've seen Opterons normally whup the G5, or are at least very competitive on paticularly G5 optimised code. Certainly not out by a factor of two, anyway.

    And no chassis? What the hell does this mean? You can get 1U, 2U and 4U beast Opteron boxes from the likes of, well, IBM for one. As mentioned above.

    It's not even like the kinda ropey nature of 64 bit Linux comes into play either because, well, there is no 64 bit OS X - unless VT know something we don't (which is always possible).

    So, yeah, I think someone decided to buy all the G5's made for a month and just set up the project to make it happen. This "achitectural options" thing is horseshit.

    Dave

    --
    I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
  17. Re:Expensive processor vs. inexpensive processors by gerardrj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    - It's pretty clear to me that Apple didn't divert anything. If you look at the numbers, the VT order accounts for about 1% of all Dual G5 orders. That's hardly enough to cause the delays that people are seeing in their ship dates. Notice the slide states Apple offered an "early september" ship date, but Apple initially promised customers a mid-late August date. Given when those talks between VT and Apple were likely taking place, that means that Apple had intended to fill other orders first, and had a special allotment for the VT order.

    - I don't know a whole lot about a blade center, but there doesn't seem to be a place to plug in the high-speed interconnects. Also, it runs on Intel chips that run hotter and do less work than the G5, especially when AltiVec gets involved, which is usually why you build a computer this size; vector processing. I'm also guessing the required configuration needed resale value to students at the end of life for the project/system.

    - That's absoloutly true. When you need technical details about Linux you have to dig. When you have a question about OS X's guts, I'd guess you call Apple and have a conference call with all the coders (at least at this level of purchase/prestige). Could you imagine trying to get Linus, and all the other code writers for Linux and the supporting libraries and utilites on the phone at once?

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  18. Tshirts given to Terascale Volunteers by Kirby-meister · · Score: 5, Funny
    I volunteered time to help get some G5's ready for this baby, and I think my favorite moment was getting the tshirt all volunteers received:

    It is quite the fashion statement :)

    (Excuse the blurriness and poor lighting - crappy cam and crappy dorm lighting)

    1. Re:Tshirts given to Terascale Volunteers by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Funny

      I volunteered time to help get some G5's ready for this baby, and I think my favorite moment was getting the tshirt all volunteers received:

      "Someone shelled out the cash for 1100 G5's and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" :-)

  19. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.apple.com/xserve/

  20. Re:Where is mine? by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Funny

    Second picture, bottom row, three in from the left.

  21. Re:Expensive processor vs. inexpensive processors by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Re: Processors
    Perhaps for their benchmarks, the G5 was 2x the performance of the Opteron. Have you taken into consideration the Altivec processor, which happens to be 128bit in size? Any vector processing will be enhanced greatly by the powerful nature of the G5 in general, and especially when using Altivec optimized code. Couple this with IBM's XLC auto-vectorizing C compiler, and I wouldn't be surprised if Altivec did wipe SSE2/3D!Now; it's been discussed before that Altivec is a superior solution to MMX/MMX2/SSE, and SSE2, so there's no reason to doubt that when you pump up the FSB from 167MHz->1GHz, pump up the CPU from 1.4GHz->2.0GHz, on the PowerPC architecture, that Altivec doesn't become the most powerful SIMD solution in commodity computing.

    Re: Chassis
    It may be a time of research vs time to market discrepancy; IE, at the time VT was requesting bids, there were no Opteron chassis announced or available, whilst Apple may have had at 95% completion, barring an actual press release and announcement. Like, simultaneous to the release of the G5 there are no IBM PPC 970 machines, yet both companies use the same CPU.

    Re: OS X
    Yeah, there is a 64 bit X. It's called OS X Panther, and there's a 64 bit aware X called 10.2.7, and the libraries for Altivec have been 128bit for years now, so all 10.2.7 really added was... 64 bit pointers and memory addresses, really.

    To recap: Altivec makes a big difference. Having immediately available machines makes a difference. Having a lower price point per performance per machine makes a difference (each node, including AC + networking + ram only costs about $4,727, which is $1,600 lower than an identically specced stock dual G5 with 4GB of ram!), as well as supportability of OS X vs Linux or, heaven forbid, Windows 2k... And yes, OS X for these machines are at least 64 bit enough to address 8GB of ram, and the OS has *always* been able to manipulate 128 bit data, as well as 64 bit data.

  22. Do you really want to know why these were cheaper? by FredFnord · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or do you just want to bitch?

    The real answer is that the problems that are going to be solved with this cluster are easily parallelizable. That's the IDEA, right? 1100 machines, each running one chunk. Well, the G5, and more specifically the Altivec vector processing section of it, is SO MUCH better for processing big bites of easily parallelizable data at a time than any of the alternatives that it can run rings around any Intel or AMD machine you care to name with fewer than double the number of processors. (And in the cases of some particular kinds of calculations, it beats those, too. But you can't count on that for all your problems.)

    We've seen this before a number of times... I seem to recall a gene sequencing program that was running five or six times faster on a G4 than it was on a Pentium IV of the same speed. And then there's SETI@home, which runs much faster, cycle-for-cycle, on the Mac, and doesn't even USE altivec. (Though I believe it does take advantage of the 'multiply-and-add' instruction of the PPC, which is another nice little feature.)

    Altivec is an astonishingly clean and usable interface for an amazingly powerful vector processor that is, in 99% of the Macs out there, underutilized to the point that if it suddenly disappeared, most people wouldn't notice any difference at all. It's kind of a pity, really.

    Basically, Intel came out with MMX (and all the later developments) in order to have a talking point on a slide presentation about their processors, about the time when competitors like AMD were starting to come forward: functionally, an awful mess, and impossibly difficult to program. (In fact, for the first few years, Intel would send programmers out to work with companies to implement MMX, because otherwise none of them would bother.

    AMD came up with something that was a little less hacked together in a very short period of time, as a response to Intel. But it still wasn't pretty, at least partially because of the limitations of the archetecture, and the performance wasn't *that* much better than just doing without.

    Apple (who really designed a lot of the basics themselves when it comes to Altivec, so don't think this was a Motorola invention) said, 'Hey, wow, we need something like that, in order to compete.' First they decided on a coprocessor, but that didn't fly any better with the PPC than it did with the older Macs (840av, 660av) with DSPs in them. So they sat down and came up with a really *good* spec for a set of multimedia extensions. And they've only gotten better since.

    I've toyed with altivec code, and I can tell you that in one application that I wrote, one instruction (vector permute) did the work of ten or more non-altiveced instructions on four times the data per cycle. Mind you, I just did it for fun, I don't know enough about parallel computing problems to come up with anything useful... but there's some interesting stuff under the hood.

    Of course, nobody is going to believe this, because as fashionable as it is to like MacOS X on slashdot these days, nobody wants to admit that, for *some* subset of problems, Mr. Jobs's reality distortion field might not be quite as much of a distortion as you might think...

    -fred

    --
    Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
  23. Look out, Cavaliers by Decaffeinated+Jedi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Between the on-campus nuclear reactor and the supercomputer cluster, I'd keep an eye out if I were Tech's cross-state rival, University of Virginia. I'd say the Hokies are just one diabolical dean away from becoming an evil university bent on world domination. And five bucks says they start in Charlottesville.

    --
    DecafJedi
    my weblog: apropos of something
  24. Re:Waste of Space by GQuon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they can put those G5s to use as desktop computers after the cluster has been "retired".

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!