Slashdot Mirror


Big Mac achieves around 14 TFlops with 128 Nodes

mzs writes "The Virginia Tech G5 cluster has achieved around 80% of its peak performance in preliminary Linpack testing with 128 nodes according to Jack Dongarra at the Top 500. "They're getting about 80 percent of the theoretical peak," Dongarra said. "If it holds, and it's unclear if it will, it has the potential to be the world's second most powerful machine." Typically getting 60% of peak in the Top 500 lists is quite good. If the Big Mac cluster achieves 60% of peak it would displace the 2,300 2.4 GHz Xeon cluster at LLNL for the number three spot on the current list."

201 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Mmm Big mac by pheared · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone remember Happy Meal Ethernet and Big Mac Ethernet?

    1. Re:Mmm Big mac by pheared · · Score: 1

      Wow you are so stupid or just a really bad troll or C) all of the above.

    2. Re:Mmm Big mac by pmz · · Score: 1

      Happy Meal Ethernet

      Damn I felt so stupid...that was the worst indigestion I've ever had! Not only that, the packets had no ketchup in them at all! Not one drop! What a ripoff.

    3. Re:Mmm Big mac by pope1 · · Score: 1

      haha, i had forgotten about those Sun Aliases for thier SBUS cards.

      One was 10mbit and the other was 100, I think they were in order of McDonalds Meal Value, but I can't honestly remember.

      --
      /* * pope1 */
    4. Re:Mmm Big mac by pheared · · Score: 1

      Yep, bme was 10, hme 100.

    5. Re:Mmm Big mac by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

      Just think what happens when you supersize it!

    6. Re:Mmm Big mac by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember Happy Meal Ethernet and Big Mac Ethernet?

      I remember the driver sauce, hme is surely worth reading. sunhme.c sunbmac.c

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    7. Re:Mmm Big mac by hattmoward · · Score: 1

      I think you missed this one completely! Those are both network devices that are very common in Sun hardware, I have an Ultra Enterprise 3000, Ultra 1, SparcStation 5, and Ultra 10 that all use happy meal cards. The netdevice name is hme0 If you've only cut your teeth on Linux for UNIX, you probably didn't realize that some UNIXes name netdevices by the piece of hardware, rather than the type of connection. Anyway, that's no troll, but don't feed any if you see them! :)

  2. D'oh! by themassiah · · Score: 1

    Imagine a beo .... son of a bitch. They beat me to it.

    --
    - Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
  3. nope... by Durinia · · Score: 2, Informative


    Title is wrong - they get 80% efficiency on 128 nodes. The 14 TFlops number is if that efficiency is held through the full size of the machine (2000+ processors).

    1. Re:nope... by snarkh · · Score: 1

      It is amusing that the submitter apparently had not bothered to read the article.

    2. Re:nope... by nate1138 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And that isn't very likely. The efficiency of large clusters drops with every node. Expect somewhere in the 60% range as a final efficiency. I think.

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    3. Re:nope... by Durinia · · Score: 1


      I was going to tack on something like "...which it won't." to the end of my post, but I thought it would get interpreted as an opinion as opposed to pointed out that the submitter was on crack. ;)

    4. Re:nope... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was going to say that something seemed terribly wrong... because when I read that I interpreted it as 128 nodes were pumping out 80% of it's peak at 14Tflops...

      if that were the case then the last 972 nodes would almost be a complete waste if they only gave a 20% preformance increase.

      good call on that Durinia!

      --
      The original generic sig.
    5. Re:nope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not only is the 14 TFlops incorrect, but it's 64 nodes - not 128 nodes! It's 128 CPUs!

      The whole posting is mangled. RTFA

    6. Re:nope... by mzs · · Score: 1

      Yes that is correct, I got that wrong in the submission as well. I hope that is it for the mistakes. Thanks for noticing. I feel bad about not getting the basic fact about how many nodes there were correct.

    7. Re:nope... by nate1138 · · Score: 1

      Oh. I though it was a given that all story submitters were on crack :-)....

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
  4. What happened to the federal controls? by BWJones · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, looking at this, I am wondering if the federal constraints on computer exports are still in place? This Apple supercluster shows that just about anyone now could afford to build a supercomputer giving smaller countries access to compute cycles never before dreamed of for relatively few $$'s

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      Not even building a supercomputer becomes teh issue. Remember when Apple came out with a new computer that they boasted couldnt be exported to certain countries. Eventually at the rate we will be going most desktop computers will be supercomputers, so will the rules either change, or will these countries not be able to buy new computers?

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    2. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by spitefulcrow · · Score: 1

      Why are there even federal controls on the power of computers that can be exported anyway?

      --
      Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
    3. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1
      Why are there even federal controls on the power of computers that can be exported anyway?

      Keep in mind that one of the first major uses for supercomputers (or any computers for that matter) was for breaking cryptography (ie, German codes during WW2). I'd imagine the restriction was done in the name of national security.

    4. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by bofkentucky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nukes, nukes, and more nukes
      Testing/developing a nuke program is much easier on a supercomputer than attempting live tests like the USSR, USA, France, Red China, and the UK did back in the 40-70's. Infact, a test detonation by a "unknown" would be sufficent grounds for a beat down by those countries or your neighbors (see Israel vs. Iraq, 1981) India and Pakistan have been allowed nukes mainly as a local deterent to keep 1-2 billion people from dying in South-Central Asia in the Indo-Muslim war that has been brewing for 50 years .

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    5. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by haraldm · · Score: 1

      Assuming that you're kidding - but do you think the world is going to be a better and more stable world if the USA are the only ones who have such compute (and other) power? Tsss..

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    6. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by BWJones · · Score: 1

      but do you think the world is going to be a better and more stable world if the USA are the only ones who have such compute (and other) power?

      What gave you that idea? I would love for everybody to have the same access to knowledge and the same access to the opportunity to contribute and move humanity forward.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    7. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ** Why are there even federal controls on the power of computers that can be exported anyway?**

      you see, they were seen as tools for producing weapons and breaking cryptography, and they thought that they could stop the passing of time and limit technological advancement(or something, anyways, it must have been a short term decision because in long term it just doesn't hold up, because the supercomputers of today are desktop computer parts tomorrow.)

      anyways, it's OK to export weapons(tanks, missile systems, assault rifles, military training) but it's not ok to export computers for them because they might conduct DANGEROUS RESEARCH.

      (anyways.. the companies never wanted such restrictions so with the teethless against businesses administratorion they went and used any loophole they could find of course)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      I would love for everybody to have the same access to knowledge and the same access to the opportunity to contribute and move humanity forward.

      Well, that statement gives me the "warm fuzzies" too, for a second, until I wake up to reality and remember that enough people think that the best opportunity to "move forward" is for their country/terrorist organization to join the nuclear club. Just look at Pakistan. Their country has innumerable problems with underdevelopment, but building a nuclear bomb somehow took priority.

      Giving North Korea the opportunity to "move forward" into the glorious future of compact, deliverable, high-yield nuclear weapons without the need for elaborate and detectable testing doesn't seem like a great service to the world at large. But maybe that's just me.

    9. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by haraldm · · Score: 1

      Admitted - but for joining the nuke club you don't actually need 128 node G5 clusters. You need some Pu239 in the first place.

      128 node G5 clusters can also deliver other more humanitarian results like medical research, and I can't see why such clusters should be under export control except in oder to protect the US industry and monopoly.

      So I still consider the OP a joke. Not a well made joke, though.

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    10. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by haraldm · · Score: 1
      anyways, it's OK to export weapons(tanks, missile systems, assault rifles, military training) but it's not ok to export computers for them because they might conduct DANGEROUS RESEARCH.
      This is silly. Hey, if these machines are export regulated in the US, those countries can import slightly less powerful (but not necessarily less efficient) technology from other countries. You can affect individuals with export regulations (or copy protection schemes) but not governments. Given enough criminal energy they will get what they want.
      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    11. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      "because the supercomputers of today are desktop computer parts tomorrow"

      Shouldn't that be:- "the desktop computers of today are the supercomputer nodes of tomorrow"?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    12. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      Plutonium is an important barrier to nuclear weapon development, but simulation is key to compact, deliverable, high-yield weapons, which are even more dangerous.

    13. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by GoRK · · Score: 1

      It's a good question actually. The answer is of course 'national security' and 'nuclear weapons' and stuff like that, but the real kicker is this:

      If a nation could not export the computers needed for a cluster, they could always build the cluster here in the US and utalize the thing over the Internet. In fact, they could probably contract a domestic company to do it for[THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED BY ECHELON]

    14. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by EinarH · · Score: 1
      The Infiniband gear used to connect the cluster is non-exportable,[..]

      True, but they could have used generic non-export controll Gigabit Ethernet and achieved 50-70% of the performance Infiniband delivers.
      Routers and switces could be bough in Asia.

      And standard/generic network technology will probably catch up on the performance side compared to the proprietary and specialised Infiniband. Hey, a third world country investing for nuclear research might choose Gigabit Ethernet anyway becasue of the price/performance ratio.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    15. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      Hindus, Indian or not, believe in non-violence, as do many others of many other religions, including more moderate versions of Islam. Non-violent peace protesters follow in the footsteps of Ghandi and Dr. King. They, like jihadists, go where they are needed (such as human shields in Iraq and Palestine). Thanks to the internet, they can be gathered together quickly in very large numbers all over the world. This led to the unprecedented peace protest in February where millions gathered in sixty countries all over the planet on a single day to protest the Iraq war.

      When enough G5 Macs cluster, they become a super computer of Godzilla proportions.

      When enough human doves cluster, they become the power greater than the world's greatest superpower: Peace.

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

    16. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      When enough human doves cluster, they become the power greater than the world's greatest superpower: Peace. Tell that to the people who suffered under the heel of Saddam in Iraq and the Mullah's in Afghanistan. Peace built on a foundation of oppression is not just, it is ignorance by those who only see the evil in war, not the benefits when it is used justly.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    17. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by FredFnord · · Score: 1

      > When enough human doves cluster, they become the power greater than the world's greatest superpower: Peace.

      Apparently not. Since there were a zillion of us out there, and the US still blew the fuck out of IRAQ with what turns out to have been no actual justification at all.

      I mean, optimism, yes, but don't make statements like this unless they have something other than sheerest optimism untempered by reality to back them up.

      -fred

      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    18. Re:What happened to the federal controls? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Hell, if you are wanting Myrinet on the cheap, check out Flat Network Neighborhoods. Lots of 100Mb/s cards and lots of switches, wiring them is a bitch but it works. PCI bus saturation is an issue in some applications, but PCI-X and/or Hypertransport should solve them.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  5. G4, G5 by inertia187 · · Score: 2, Funny

    When will Slashdot add or change the G4 icon to G5?

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    1. Re:G4, G5 by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 1

      When will Slashdot add or change the G4 icon to G5?

      Don't you mean a giant heatsink?

      --
      Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
    2. Re:G4, G5 by eshefer · · Score: 1

      > Don't you mean a giant heatsink?

      I think he means this.

  6. Of course... by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


    There are weenies that will say "Psstt.. you know that #2 computer in the Big 500? It only has one button on the mouse!"

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Of course... by johnny0101 · · Score: 1

      But it has 1100 mice!! more than enough buttons ;) It would be really cool if they hooked up a 24 inch display to each of the machines and put them all on the wall to make one big @$$ wall display... (screw the performance!!)

      --

      ----
      In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
    2. Re:Of course... by pmz · · Score: 1

      I have never understood apples refusal to put a second button on the mouse.

      Because you only need one button to get a mouse to squeak. Well, I suppose the second button could be used to operate the Pez dispensor at the back...mmmm.

    3. Re:Of course... by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's even worse. I remember when not one of the Big 500 even knew what a mouse was!

      -WS

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    4. Re:Of course... by Arkham · · Score: 1


      There are weenies that will say "Psstt.. you know that #2 computer in the Big 500? It only has one button on the mouse!"


      Technically, it has 1100 buttons...damn I bet that is one unweieldy mouse.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    5. Re:Of course... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Then you have never had the pain of explaining to a novice the difference between clicking with the left and right buttons, and then watched them try to use the right button when selecting an area. One mouse button is is much easier for novices. The OS and most apps support more buttons, if you feel the need for them.

      Having said that, I would like Apple to rebadge their current `pro' mouse as a standard mouse and release a pro mouse with a wheel.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  7. hello... by herrvinny · · Score: 1

    If the Big Mac cluster achieves 60% of peak

    They ALREADY achieved 80% of peak, is the submitter listening?

    1. Re:hello... by millahtime · · Score: 1

      THey achieved 80% peak with 128 processors. The more processors you add the more it comes down from peak. No supercomputer achieves peak.

    2. Re:hello... by Querty · · Score: 1

      As remarked above this is only for a 128 node test. If they keep it up at 80% for the full 2000+ nodes, it will be quite impressive.

    3. Re:hello... by Lank · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 80% on _128_ machines... The more machines you add into the cluster, the more synchronization and locking you have to do. On a 2-way machine, that's nothing. As more and more CPUs compete for the same resources, though, contention becomes a huge problem, and the percentage of useful work continually goes down.

      --
      Gotta get me one of these!
    4. Re:hello... by msevior · · Score: 1

      They have to maintain that efficiency in a factor of 20 scale up to get 14 TeraFlops.

      That's a huge factor. Getting that factor 20 scale is hard and is a large part of the usefulness of the underlying software and networking architecture.

      Since it hasn't been demonstrated, the Top 500 people are right to withhold judgement.

  8. Mass storage? by draziw · · Score: 1

    What is it using for disk space? MCR @ LLNL is using the Lustre file system with DataDirect Networks storage.

    1. Re:Mass storage? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Btw the main developer of Lustre is a really cool dude. I had some questions about snapshotting filesystems on linux, he had done some preliminary work on one similar to Netapp's for linux. I asked him about his work and if he knew about any similar work. He said his work was on hold indefinitly while he worked his paying gig on Lustre but that if he ever got Lustre complete enough that he didn't have to work 80+ hour weeks he would probably take it up again, he also pointed me to some solutions that he thought might fit my needs. Unfortunatly right now there really aren't any non-commercial ones that do what I want, but I'm hoping that the Samba team will take up windows shadow copy service model from Windows 2003 which is almost exactly what I want.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Mass storage? by joib · · Score: 1

      LVM can do snapshotting. Check the "lvcreate -s" option. If you're looking for something more backup-like, you might want to take a look at Mike Rubel's rsync-snapshots page. I'm currently using a package called dirvish to do rsync snapshots to my backup server. Works like a charm. :)

  9. I strongly doubt by johnny0101 · · Score: 1

    that the 80% holds as more and more nodes are added. Wouldn't each additional node have to be 100% efficient for this to happen... (ok so let's whip out the math induction and prove this is not possible)

    --

    ----
    In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
    1. Re:I strongly doubt by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't each additional node have to be 100% efficient for this to happen

      No. They would only have to be the same 80%. What this test is saying is that 128 nodes together are producing 80% of their theoretical peak (around 1.6 of 2 TFlops). If this efficiency is replicated through the rest of the nodes the final output would be around 80% of its peak (around 14 of 17.6 TFlops).

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    2. Re:I strongly doubt by johnny0101 · · Score: 1

      yeah you're right. my fingers type faster than my brain moves... :D

      --

      ----
      In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
    3. Re:I strongly doubt by Flexodus · · Score: 1

      I am partially sharing your opinion - i guess the Big Mac *geee what a name* might reach the 3rd place - Might even happen that they line up alphabetically, who knows? Big Blue, Big Mac, Big Nec? *Gg*

  10. Thats one fast Mac by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 1
    With only 1100 macs to achieve the second rank of the TOP 500 computers for a measly 5.2 million... it makes one wonder why in the world the opteron or itanium's arent used in this type of cluster to achieve similar if not greater results?

    This is tremendous advertising for apple, but what about clusters of Power4's and 5's? why wouldnt they out-perform this cluster? at 14tflops... would 2200 macs be fairly equal to the earth simulator?

    And lastly with IBM seeing their G5's at 3Ghz in 8 months or so.... do you think we will also see a 50% increase in power? i.e. 21tflops for 1100 machines? i know this doesnt translate directly.... but holy mackeral.

    --
    --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
    1. Re:Thats one fast Mac by pmz · · Score: 1

      what about clusters of Power4's and 5's?

      The Power Mac version of the IBM POWER chips probably scales better with cost/performance. POWER/UltraSPARC/Itanic are really best suited to high-reliability workhorse servers. Clusters probably don't need ultra-high reliability if they can program around it.

    2. Re:Thats one fast Mac by shaitand · · Score: 1

      There are itanium clusters, they don't even begin to compete. That's the whole point. finally someone with a few bucks is realizing those macs have dirt cheap fast RISC processors that blow away x86 clones. Of course they dumped the bloated macos and installed linux, again as I've said should be done all along ;)

    3. Re:Thats one fast Mac by SlamMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try again. The VA cluster is running OSX, as seen here.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    4. Re:Thats one fast Mac by Erich · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that Itanium is not based on the x86 architecture?

      --

      -- Erich

      Slashdot reader since 1997

    5. Re:Thats one fast Mac by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      I imagine it's running the Darwin core, not all the flouncy bits on top.

      But, then, I haven't been getting the faxes from Apple Marketing so I can't say for sure.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    6. Re:Thats one fast Mac by stevesliva · · Score: 2, Informative
      This is tremendous advertising for apple, but what about clusters of Power4's and 5's? why wouldnt they out-perform this cluster?
      See this list? See all the IBM p690 server systems? They're all running Power4 or Power4+. However, I don't know why they're slower. The PPC970 isn't quite the same as the Power4. Plus all those Power systems are running at 1.3Ghz.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    7. Re:Thats one fast Mac by timeOday · · Score: 1
      There are itanium clusters, they don't even begin to compete. That's the whole point. finally someone with a few bucks is realizing those macs have dirt cheap fast RISC processors that blow away x86 clones.
      The Itanic is living proof that a NON x86 CPU can still be crap :)
    8. Re:Thats one fast Mac by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I was actually refering to the opteron's he mentioned. The itanium however is NOT a risc chip, so my point applies to it as well.

    9. Re:Thats one fast Mac by Demolition · · Score: 1

      n8_f, in another thread, notes that Dr. Hassan Aref, Dean of VT's College of Engineering, has said that the G5 cluster uses a stock OS X install.

      D.

    10. Re:Thats one fast Mac by SamBaughman · · Score: 1

      I'm a graduate of Virginia Tech. The article you linked to, however, thinks the school is called Virginia Tech University. Every time I think there's no way for me to have a lower opinion of journalists, I discover something new. (As if ESPN's pronuniation of "VA Tech" as "vah tech" wasn't bad enough...)

    11. Re:Thats one fast Mac by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, bad article, but it was the fastest one that came up under google to prove my point.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    12. Re:Thats one fast Mac by n8_f · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha, somebody does read my posts. I don't think I could have said it better myself. : )

      Follow the links in parent for more info. They will consider other OSes in the future, but for now Mac OS X was the only thing that full supported the Power Mac G5s and time was of the essence. Plus, as I have said before, OS X isn't a bad choice for performance. It has been improving by leaps and bounds and all of the stuff you're not using gets swapped out to disk anyway. I'd like to see some kernel performance numbers for 10.3 versus Linux. I'm sure Linux still has the edge in most things, but I'd guess not by much.

  11. That's nothing... by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Big Mac also achieved around 14 KTons with 128 kids.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:That's nothing... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      14336 Tons with 128000 ids? What's that supposed to mean? ;-)

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  12. Big Mac? by xtermz · · Score: 1

    ...If the Big Mac cluster achieves 60% of peak ...

    Big Mac cluster? What's that do, display in real time the flow of special sauce molecules over the surface of a flame broiled patty?

    --


    I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
    1. Re:Big Mac? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      special sauce molecules

      I hope you're not talking about the open sauce?

    2. Re:Big Mac? by pixelgeek · · Score: 1

      MacDonalds doesn't flame broil their patties they are fried.

    3. Re:Big Mac? by pmz · · Score: 1

      Big Mac cluster?

      Sure, as long as the cooling system is pumping Mylanta.

    4. Re:Big Mac? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Grilling is done by radiant heat, McDonalds therefore does not grill their burgers. They are fried on those electric plates.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  13. Whoops I got that title wrong by mzs · · Score: 1

    Just to elaborate, the 14 TFlops is if Big Mac achieves 80% of peak with the full 1100 nodes. 14 TFlops with just 256 PPC 970 cpus is completely implausible. I cannot believe I wrote that, sorry about it my mistake.

  14. So what? by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

    IBM has 49 of the top 100 from the last list. Who cares whose on top if you make almost half of the 100 fastest computers in the world?

    Yes, this is a troll post. I am pissed the submission after the Napster 2 one wasn't the itunes4Windows announcement.

    --

    Going on means going far
    Going far means returning
  15. Re:To quote G. W. Bush: "Enough is Enough" by dthable · · Score: 4, Funny
  16. rejected my story! by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    2003-10-16 18:22:14 iTunes for windows launched (articles,apple) (rejected)

    AAAGH!

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:rejected my story! by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      The fools! I want very much to find out if this is going to be available in Canada. Our "new" service - purecrap.com has about as much electronica as a folk festival.

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    2. Re:rejected my story! by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Well, someone succeeded: Apple Releases iTunes for Windows

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  17. Topic Icon by 47Ronin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Time to replace the G4 icon with a G5 pic dont you think??

    Like this for example > http://www.apple.com/g5processor/

    --
    Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
    1. Re:Topic Icon by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      You're talking to the same people who have had an incorrect US flag since as long as I remember.

      Even *after* I sent a new one. Three times.

      I'm thinking that the G4 icon will be there when the G7 Virgin Tech cluster comes out.

    2. Re:Topic Icon by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Virgin Tech
      >>>>>>>>>>>
      That's a pretty accurate description of the school, based on the people I know that go there :)

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:Topic Icon by cactopus · · Score: 1

      Well it's also time to replace the Caldera C logo with a SCO/SCOX tree on a yellow background, but they don't do that either. Caldera has nothing to do with the SCO case having been bought and changed in nature before the case happened.

  18. Now I know what I have to do... by downix · · Score: 1

    Break into the labs and use this baby to run some RC5 cracks! My team will be unstoppable!

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Now I know what I have to do... by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Actually the client runs like ASS on the G5. Wait for the new code, then break in and let that puppy run wild (:

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  19. Great feat - IBM! by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Great feat - IBM!

    Why is everyone so obsesses with Apple when it comes to G5? What does Apple have to do with the G5?! This is the kiddie version of IBM's success CPU named Power4, if I'm not totally incorrect.

    Apple, to me, is a group of cosmetologist hangarounds. ;)

    1. Re:Great feat - IBM! by CapnRob · · Score: 1

      Apple built the boxes, and the G5 was, pretty much, built to their specs. Also, the OS is, well, you know, MacOS.

    2. Re:Great feat - IBM! by danigiri · · Score: 1
      Yeah.

      Go to IBM, ask them to lend you a couple of G5 cores. Go and design a new motherboard that will accept it and be able to plug in to it lots of goodies. Remeber it must not fry the G5's when running at full speed, that is a requeriment.

      Remember to check in with your impressive feat before 2013.

    3. Re:Great feat - IBM! by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      Thats not true, it is basicly a Power4 with
      less cache, and an altivec unit.

      I can hardly imagine that the gui code Apple
      wrote is beeing used in the cluster.

    4. Re:Great feat - IBM! by zpok · · Score: 1

      "What does Apple have to do with the G5?!"

      I take it your post is more of a joke than a troll. If not, check out the G5 product pages (apple.com, too lazy to do this in html).

      Apart from the fact that the G5 is per Apple's specs (which is not the same as "gimme a chip, we'll slam it on the motherboard")...

      That bus speed is something, the whole motherboard is something, the whole 9 fans array is something. In fact the whole f*cking computer is awesome.

      Remember, this is a PC, not a workstation. OK, that's maybe just a matter of words, but look at it this way:
      they built a capable, very very gorgeous (and I'm not even talking about looks) computer around this you can just go out and buy. And it runs backward compatible all your (ok, maybe not your, but absolutely my) favorite apps on a very very nice OS.

      Not meaning disrespect to IBM, but when you talk about the G5 you talk about Apple.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    5. Re:Great feat - IBM! by forlornhope · · Score: 1

      Or coule it be a Power5? Yes I think it is. I mean the Power4 isnt 64bit. Atleast be correct in your stupidity.

      --
      "We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
    6. Re:Great feat - IBM! by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      >> Or coule it be a Power5? Yes I think it is. I mean the Power4 isnt 64bit. Atleast be correct in your stupidity.

      Power4 is 64 bit.

    7. Re:Great feat - IBM! by forlornhope · · Score: 1

      Now we go to the definative source... IBM. http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/tec hdocs/852569B20050FF7785256996007248B1 Now look at the title. And realize that IBM's internal designation for the Power 4 is the Power PC 7XX. Now really, who needs to take a look in the mirror to find the idiot?

      --
      "We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
  20. Only 64 Nodes by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

    The submitter stated 128 nodes. This is wrong. The article states 128 processors which would be 64 nodes.

    --

    -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
  21. Re:someone had to say it by sbowles · · Score: 1, Funny

    Otherwise known as a "Franchise".

    --
    You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
  22. herrvinny by herrvinny · · Score: 1

    Okay, I RTFA'ed, and it looks good. Hope they can keep the 80%. I wonder if I can pester U of Wisc at Madison to fund a $10 million Apple supercomputer.

    By the way, I just downloaded iTunes for Windows from Apple's site. Apple is really basking in the sunlight here....

  23. What? by blackmonday · · Score: 1

    Big Mac achieves around 14 TFlops...

    All this time the answer to my supercomputing needs was at McDonalds. What a burger!

    1. Re:What? by Skater · · Score: 1

      My thought: "Yes, I would like fries with that."

      --RJ

  24. Aren't they late??? by azpcox · · Score: 1

    Or do they have a note from their CS professor that their dog ate their last cluster...

    --
    What exactly do you mean by "Don't touch this button?"
  25. Efficiency to Burn by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

    It should be noted that the final result doesn't need to be anywhere near 80% efficiency to assure it second place on the list. The third place machine is only around 7 TFlops, meaning Big Mac could operate at as low as 40 to 45 percent efficiency and still take second.

    --

    -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    1. Re:Efficiency to Burn by herrvinny · · Score: 1

      "We're just making up numbers here," Dongarra cautioned. "We don't have real numbers yet. If they get 80 percent, it will be slightly faster than (ASCI Q, the current No. 2 on the Top 500 list)." Built by Hewlett-Packard for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, ASCI Q is based on 8,000 Alpha processors and operates at 13.8 teraflops.

      What are you talking about? They have to displace the SECOND place computer to be second. It operates at 13.8 TF. Virginia Tech is going to need to squeeze every last flop they can get out of this machine

    2. Re:Efficiency to Burn by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

      Oops, yeah I meant 3rd place. Even if they don't get second they are still going to be up there. My bad.

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    3. Re:Efficiency to Burn by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Huh? If it beats the 3rd place machine, it becomes 3rd and the current 3rd place becomes 4th. To be 2nd it has to beat the 2nd place machine at 13 TFlops.

  26. What compiler are they using? by iJed · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they are using GCC3.3 or IBM XL C. Apparently the performance from code generated by the IBM compiler far exceeds that generated by the latest PPC GCC.

  27. Premature by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The article says
    "We're just making up numbers here," Dongarra cautioned. "We don't have real numbers yet. If they get 80 percent, it will be slightly faster than (ASCI Q, the current No. 2 on the Top 500 list)."
    Then a little later, the article says:
    Lockhart cautioned that even if Big Mac beat most of the machines in the current Top 10, the list, which is compiled twice a year, is a moving target. Lockhart said there are four or five new supercomputers coming online that also may qualify for places in the Top 10.
    So to summarize, the data aren't in and nobody will really know where the machine ranks until all the data are in. About the only outcome one would expect is that the machine would outperform older technology.
  28. I wonder what they could do with a WHOPPER array! by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    Of course, it might get out of hand....everyone knoes it takes two hands to handle the whopper!

  29. Theoretical peak of the LLNL Xeon cluster? by hal9000 · · Score: 1

    Anyone know the theoretical peak of the 2300-node xeon cluster at the Lawrence Livermore lab? I've read elsewhere that it was (to be) a 1920-node cluster with a theoretical peak of 9.2 teraflops.

    This article reports that the 2300-noder operates at 7.6 teraflops, but i was wondering what percentage of its theoretical peak that is.

    --
    Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    1. Re:Theoretical peak of the LLNL Xeon cluster? by dbirchall · · Score: 1
      According to the June Top500 List, LLNL's third-ranked MCR Xeon cluster has an Rmax of 7634.00, and an Rpeak of 11060.00.

      Rmax is the best it's attained; Rpeak is the theoretical peak in a perfect world with 100% multiprocessing efficiency.

      One of the really amazing things about the NEC Earth Simulator (aside from its sheer power) is that its Rmax is over 85% of its Rpeak. A lot of other systems only get Rmax of 60-70% of Rpeak.

      I've read that PowerPC chips are pretty efficient in SMP scenarios, and if "Big Mac" is turning in an Rmax that's 80% of Rpeak (even on a fairly small number of processors), that would seem to validate that assertion.

    2. Re:Theoretical peak of the LLNL Xeon cluster? by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see. The 1920-node, ranked #6, is actually a different computer than the 2300-node, ranked #3. Thanks for the link.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    3. Re:Theoretical peak of the LLNL Xeon cluster? by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      No rain on my parade... I just wanted to see how the expected efficiency of this G5 cluster compares to the Xeon cluster with almost the same number of nodes. Should be interesting to see how Big Mac matches up against Thunder in that regard, too. Thanks for the link.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    4. Re:Theoretical peak of the LLNL Xeon cluster? by thesmos · · Score: 1

      Thunder Looks Expensive.

  30. SETI array by darc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interestingly, a fun number to compare against is SETI@Home's array power, which is approximately 15 teraflops. [See the SETI@Home FAQ]

    Although they don't run Linpack, and therefore can't be considered on Top500 the same way, it's still cool to know that SETI would still place second on the supercomputing list. Back in 2001, they were averaging a very large number of teraflops as well, (>10TF) the figure is on the internet somewhere. In 2001, that was greater than the top three supercomputing sites combined.

    It would be interesting to see the power of the Seti array using today's processors.. which are arugably far faster than 2001's, despite the short amount of time.

    Still, SETI outperforms this mac cluster, although it's obvious that SETI's distribution model is clearly not usable for the same problems that need to be solved.

    --
    Tired of legitimate data sources? Try UNCYCLOPEDIA
  31. Desktop Supercomputer by Geccoman · · Score: 1

    The story about the Big Mac is great, but the link to the "desktop supercomputer" chip is what really captured my attention

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60791, 00.html

    --
    I'm on a chair.
  32. WarGames by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    This puts NORAD's WOPR to shame...

  33. Pretty cheap by randombit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From article: Dongarra said the cost is so low he questioned whether the college got a special discount.

    At $5.2 mil for 1100 machines, I think they paid full market price; that's over $4,500 per machine, and currently Apple is selling dual 2 Ghz G5's for ~$3000. And that's with lots of extras that they wouldn't want in a cluster (ATI 9600, CDRW, etc), which hopefully they convinced Apple they didn't need... (else they've got a whole lot of Mac keyboards sitting around!)

    I wonder how much of the cost was the actual machines, and how much was infrastructure and networking stuff (I can just see 1,100 Macs all powered off one extension cord and a bunch of surge protectors).

    1. Re:Pretty cheap by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, 4GB mem per machine and NETWORK cost. Infiniband cards cost more than 100$, and switching architecture with 1100 ports isnt cheap, either...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Pretty cheap by cly · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to take into account that high performace interconnect are expensive. Look at Myrinet. One NIC costs ~$1500.

      I do feel some discount is involved.

    3. Re:Pretty cheap by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And that's with lots of extras that they wouldn't want in a cluster (ATI 9600, CDRW, etc), which hopefully they convinced Apple they didn't need...

      They plan to use the GPU on the 9600 in the future for extra compute cycles. It's a cheap coprocessor.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Pretty cheap by timbck2 · · Score: 1

      Virginia Tech got the standard Apple .edu discount on the G5's for the Terascale cluster. No more, no less.

      I have no idea what kind of deal they got from Infiniband.

      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
  34. What OS are they using? by sniggly · · Score: 1

    And what OS are they using? I haven't read about that anywhere but I would venture to guess it's some commodity os (linux) they don't need to mention. And yes at 80% efficiency they have to use altivec optimalization .. if it's gcc hopefully we'll see better altivec support sooner rather than later.

    --
    Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
    1. Re:What OS are they using? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      According to the VTech press release, Big Mac runs MacOS X, probably version 10.2.8. Maybe they'd get a boost by upgrading to Panther in a few days ?

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:What OS are they using? by iJed · · Score: 1

      They are running a special version of OS X. Probably just a beta version of Panther with the mysterious XGrid.

  35. I agree by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

    Especially since the article is specifically about G5's and not G4's. What gives?

  36. Re:Mod this trash down! by BizidyDizidy · · Score: 1

    Your "crusade" is more annoying than these posts. Especially using your karma bonus. Say these things do get modded down; your posts remains and is just as bad (maybe worse, as it is offtopic). Why don't you use your mod points like you choose, and let others do so also. You'll notice I'm not using my Karma bonus to posts this, and I hope that you'll stop this "crusade".

    --
    The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
  37. What will the effect of by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    What will the effect of the 'magical' software they have to detect memory errors be?

  38. Re:yeah blah blah blah #3 on the list by nr · · Score: 1

    Yep it will, if Carmack do a port to MPI/MPICH.

  39. Imagine a beowulf cluster of... by Timbo · · Score: 1

    Most expensive super computer EVAR.

  40. FOR THE LAST TIME: IT RUNS MACOSX by danigiri · · Score: 1
    For the last time: IT RUNS MACOSX.

    Repeat after me: IT RUNS MACOSX

    PDF presentation link.

    1. Re:FOR THE LAST TIME: IT RUNS MACOSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You mean "for the second-to-last time," don't you?

    2. Re:FOR THE LAST TIME: IT RUNS MACOSX by shaitand · · Score: 1

      According to the article in which they first announced they had built it, it's running linux, not MACOSX

    3. Re:FOR THE LAST TIME: IT RUNS MACOSX by Smurf · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you go to the VT Terascale Cluster site, and download the slide presentation, you will find (on slide 13) that "The system will run the Mac OS X operating platform".

    4. Re:FOR THE LAST TIME: IT RUNS MACOSX by cgaylord · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect; try reading it this time. The Infiniband network vendor (Melanox) executive was quoted saying that this kind of success is due to (among other things) Linux. He wasn't saying that this cluster runs Linux. The Melanox Infiniband drivers (and some of the other software) were first developed on Linux and benefit from the open source development model. This was to also point out that the large number of Linux-based systems can use this vendor's products (i.e. that it isn't Mac-specific).

  41. Re:How Many... by nacturation · · Score: 1

    The real question is how many elephants that cluster weighs.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  42. cost by mr_burns · · Score: 1

    the article suggests that maybe va tech got a big discount from apple because of the huge cost difference from other sooperputers so I went to the apple online store.

    I pulled the modem out of the default dual 2ghz g5 mac and upped the ram to 4gigs, as I vaguely remember the big mac node config being from some other article somewhere. Cost 5,320. Tried to up the quatity to 1100 in my cart but the web form would only allow 3 digits, so I did 110. Got 563,200. That looks like a volume discout because my calculator spits out 585200 for simple multiplication. So if we go to 1100 the apple online store may automatically give a steaper discount still.

    And remember: these are joe blow prices. they probably paid educational prices. AND my figures use apple's expensive ram, not third party prices.

    So it looks like they did get a discount, but not anything special. Looks like the kind of deal any school would get if they pieced one together online today.

    The only special treatment they probably got was the shipping priority.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  43. Shouldn't the icon read G5? by crovira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm picking nits here but...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Shouldn't the icon read G5? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The rest of run in 'light' mode, so we don't have to wait for all that nonsense to download. Icons? What icons?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  44. OOPS! by mr_burns · · Score: 1

    I did the store thing twice to get my numbers. Second time I for got to replace the superdrive with the combo. That accounts for the automatic discount. Unit price is 5,120 on that config * 110 is 563200 which is spit out in the cart.

    Sorry folks. I'll sheepishly retreat into the corner now

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  45. Re:What? IS it OSX they are using? by sniggly · · Score: 1
    Yeah you're right - page 13 has that and also says it uses both gcc 3.3 and IBM xlc / xlf for fortran

    Well that changes my perception. at first I just considered it a big blue supercomputer but ... the 2nd fastest supercomputer on the planet runs OSX!

    --
    Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
  46. According to John Carmack, it will by danigiri · · Score: 1
    According to John Carmack, who has, like, some say in the matter, it will.

    In fact, he kinda demoed it first on a Mac.

  47. Re:Topic Icon (US Flag) by Insightfill · · Score: 1
    You're talking to the same people who have had an incorrect US flag since as long as I remember.

    Hey - You're right! It looked a little odd - so I zoomed it up a bunch and sure enough: 12 stripes! I wonder which colony they dropped?

    (Reminds me of the time I was driving home from work and some guy had painted a US flag on the side windows of his Chevy Blazer. As a former teacher, it saddened me that this "patriot" figured we only had 36 states - six rows of six stars. Also, in his world, there were 15 colonies/stripes.)

  48. Re:I wonder what they could do with a WHOPPER arra by GatorMan · · Score: 1
  49. it's a giant heatsink... but by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    it's a giant heatsink... but it the best looking heatsink I've ever seen.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  50. Maybe now a mac will play games as fast as a PC! by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

    Bah... probably still tied to an ATI Rage video card, though...

  51. The article title is demonstrably wrong... by Troy+Baer · · Score: 1
    VA Tech must've gotten about 1.6 TFlop/s on 128 nodes. 14 TFlop/s is waaaaaay in excess of the peak for 128 dual G5 nodes (by almost an order of magnitude in fact).

    Here's how I figure that:

    A G5 proc can do 4 64-bit FP ops per clock cycle (2 FPUs with each capable of doing a multiply/add op), so that's 8 GFlops/s per 2GHz proc, or 16 GFlop/s per dual-proc node. For 128 nodes, that's a little over 2.048 TFlop/s peak. Dongerra said they were getting 80% of peak, which would be 1.638 TFlop/s.

    The thing that I *still* haven't heard explained in all the reporting on the VA Tech G5 cluster is how they're scaling the interconnect out to 1100 nodes. The biggest InfiniBand switch you can get right now is 128 ports, so somehow they're going to have to slave a whole bunch of IB switches together. There's a lot of ways they could do that, but the cheapest way (with minimal bandwidth between switches) could really hurt them on big parallel codes like the Parallel Linpack Benchmark. It's even worse for codes like parallel FFTs that are bound by bisection bandwidth (where all the nodes are talking to all the other nodes at full bandwidth simultaneously). It's not clear to me if VA Tech is planning on putting in an IB network that preserves bisection bandwidth or not.

    --Troy
    --
    "My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
    1. Re:The article title is demonstrably wrong... by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      The biggest InfiniBand switch you can get right now is 128 ports

      Kinda makes you wonder why it was a 128 node test, doesn't it?

      Still, an 80% performance mark over 128 nodes is impressive, and we'll have to wait and see what the final architecture does.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    2. Re:The article title is demonstrably wrong... by Troy+Baer · · Score: 1
      Still, an 80% performance mark over 128 nodes is impressive, and we'll have to wait and see what the final architecture does.
      80% is pretty decent. I think our (OSC's) Itanium II cluster with Myrinet gets something like 86% of peak on Parallel Linpack at 128 nodes (256 procs total).
      --Troy
      --
      "My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
    3. Re:The article title is demonstrably wrong... by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      I also want to know how much floor space this thing takes up. with 12 nodes per rack, you're looking at 92 racks to cover that many machines.. the picture they posted shows 15+ racks in a row, say they have 22 racks per row, which would give us room for IB switches, gige switches, and disk servers. that's 256 nodes per row.. you're looking at maybe 4.5 rows of 22 24" racks.. the G5 being an 8" wide box. with some extra room for cable managment, and rack structure, you're probably talking 28" wide for each rack. each row is 51.3 feet long, and 8 feet wide (4ft for the rack, 4ft for the walking space).. totals (rough estimate here) 1800 square feet. or 50 feet by 36 feet. That's a hell of a lot of floor space.

      With a 44 node racksavers setup, or a more normal 42 1U node rack, you're looking at 27 19" racks to equal the same number of compute nodes. plus 3 racks for IB switches, and another for disks.. so say 31 racks total.. stacked into rows of 10, you're looking at 3 rows 20 feet wide.. again, 8 feet for each row, or around 500 square feet.. or around 1/4 the space..

  52. Stop the obfuscation ... by Ninja+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Ok you frothing Macaholics. *Someone* explain to me *how* such a largely clustered machine was put together with 80% efficiency *WITHOUT* ECC. This issue has been posted several times on this story, without any satisfactory answer.

    If there are too many nodes the error rate goes up super-linearly (since interconnect errors have to be factored in.) There's no getting around this. If they are just running *without* ECC and hoping the results just come out correctly, then this is worthless -- its amounts to "fluke calculations".

    1. Re:Stop the obfuscation ... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      AFAIK ECC isn't really that important. when a machine with ECC detects an error it shuts down, when a machine without ECC has an error it usually crashes. My guess is that the machines get power-cycled every now-and-then, and somewhere in the init the machine checks the RAM. RAM errors are pretty far-between on Macs when using Apple-branded RAM.

      ECC is overrated.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    2. Re:Stop the obfuscation ... by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

      1. Take a deep breath.

      2. Step away from you computer and walk out side for a bit. Try not to be scared by all the blue sky and that really bright yellow ball up there.

      3. Come back in after sudden exposure to intense light causes immediate sunburn.

      4. Read about Deja Vu here.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    3. Re:Stop the obfuscation ... by wankledot · · Score: 1

      "Apple branded RAM" No such thing. Apple doesn't make RAM, and anyone paying Apple's prices for "approved" RAM is getting taken for a ride.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    4. Re:Stop the obfuscation ... by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      ECC detects an error it shuts down,.

      Not necessarily. Know what ECC stands for? One of the C's is for Correction. Given enough extra bits, you can arrange the coding so that valid memory words all differ from one another by two or more bit flips. Given a single bit flip, and assuming it was only a single bit flip, you can uniquely determine the corresponding valid memory word. If the hardware is functioning properly (e.g., it was just a cosmic ray hitting a RAM cell), then you can rewrite the valid combination, and keep going.

      Given proper hardware & BIOS support, error correction coding should allow for detection, reporting, AND CORRECTION of single-bit errors in 64-bit words. Of course, a bargain basement motherboard & BIOS is not going to correct the error, but you get what you pay for.

      Also, there is no possible way to back up the statement that RAM errors are pretty far-between on Macs. Non-ECC RAM errors, if they are in working memory, corrupt data or program code without leaving a fingerprint. You just get bogus results, or a bizarre, probably non-reproducible application crash.

    5. Re:Stop the obfuscation ... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      we all know that. you know what I mean, the 'Apple Store' RAM.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  53. theoretical peak by glgraca · · Score: 1

    Were did the number for the 'theoretical peak'
    com from?

    It looks suspiciously similar to 1,100 * ~14
    gigaflops (which is the measured performance
    of 1 G5 Powermac).

    There's no science in that!

  54. Re:I wonder what they could do with a WHOPPER arra by Dick+Faze · · Score: 1

    We need to beef up security around the Whopper.....

  55. yeah but by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    how long does it take to copy a 17 M file from one folder to another?

    1. Re:yeah but by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      how long does it take to copy a 17 M file from one folder to another?

      Let me try...ok, done. Turns out it's too fast to even start the timer.

  56. Still costs nearly twice as much as the UT 'puter by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    With Apple gear, it cost nearly twice as much as the cheaper Dell supercomputer at University of Texas:

    = 9J =

  57. Wow by Kelz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Had no idea hamburgers could run that fast.
    Must be the "special" bun in the middle.

  58. Get photos? by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    Git yer pictures here.

    = 9J =

  59. Volkswagens! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    I want to know about how many volkswagen bugs it is, can this thing fit in my house, or do I need to rent a warehouse?

    Also, I don't trust it until it comes with a 'Performance Rating' from Cyrix, How many Pentiums is this beast?

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  60. oh yeah?? by Alpha_Nerd · · Score: 1

    My double whopper is going to beat that!

  61. Re:Maybe now a mac will play games as fast as a PC by veddermatic · · Score: 1

    LOL!!@! MACS CAN'T PLAY GAMES LOL!!@!!!!!!

    You are very clever. Now STFU and actually read something about Macs that isn't 8 years old.

    --
    Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
  62. Re:Still costs nearly twice as much as the UT 'put by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    Wasn't the title of the linked article: "Mac Supercomputer: Fast, Cheap" ???

    = 9J =

  63. Re:Still costs nearly twice as much as the UT 'put by wankledot · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it cost twice as much, and only outperforms it by a factor of 4.

    who got the better deal?

    --
    My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
  64. Gigaflops question by DanThe1Man · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know a site that lists the floating point values of common processors like the Pentium 4 and Athlon series? I would like to calculate the power of therotical clusters but I can't find the Gigaflop/Teraflop information anywhere. Anyone?

    1. Re:Gigaflops question by taradfong · · Score: 1

      Intel Xeon's can do 2 (64 bit) flops per clock.

      Look at the 'Rpeak' reading on the top500.org site here. This is the theoretical maximum for the cluster. Take the #3 Intel machine. It has 1152 dual processor machines for a total of 2304 processors at 2.4 Ghz. So, 2304*2*2.4 = 11,059.

      An Itanium, BTW can do 4 flops per clock, and that's why a 1.5 Ghz Itanium competes with a 3.06 Ghz Xeon on Linpack

      --
      Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
  65. more hype by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1
    Big Mac achieves around 14 TFlops with 128 Nodes [...] If the Big Mac cluster achieves 60% of peak it would displace the 2,300 2.4 GHz Xeon cluster at LLNL for the number three spot on the current list.

    Uh, huh. So, if those statements were true, the G5 would be 12 times faster than a Xeon. Quite a feat of engineering that would be. But I don't think so. The folks at VT are extrapolating their 64 node performance to a 2300 node cluster.

    This tells us two things:
    • Mac advocates have stooped to new lows in trying to create the impression that the PPC has a huge performance advantage.
    • The guys who did the extrapolation have no clue about parallel computing: just because you get 80% efficiency on a 128 node cluster doesn't mean you get 80% efficiency on a 2300 node cluster. In fact, they'd be lucky to get 60% when/if they scale up.

    Basically, you can't believe anything anymore anybody says about the supposedly stellar performance of PPC: the hype has simply drowned out all reality. Personally, I found the G5 acceptable but nothing extraordinary. Run your own benchmarks and see how well it works for you.
  66. Amazing set-up time by Iowaguy · · Score: 1

    Being a bio guy, maybe I am niave, but isn't the fact that one get set up a top 50 super computer in about two weeks something of an acheivement? Yes, it is only 80%, but that still makes it on the list. Wow. _Iowa

    --
    "He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
  67. Simulating Nuclear Weapons is more the CPU cycles. by highfreq2 · · Score: 1
    As I understand it only countries who have experience testing real nukes, can really hope to achieve much with simulation.

    You can throw all the computer horsepower you want at a simulation, but you need some way to validate the results. Of course if you have a perfect understanding of sub-atomic physics and can develop a large scale software project with zero bugs then you should be good to go, but back in reality we need a way to validate.

  68. Re:Still costs nearly twice as much as the UT 'put by crystalll · · Score: 1

    You didn't get it, 1100 2ghz G5 trounce by a wide margin 2400 2.4 GHz P4 Xeons...

  69. Exactly right. by enkidu · · Score: 1
    It should be remembered that most of the computation to develop the many of our nuclear weapons was done on the computational equivalent of a Palm Pilot (the Dragonball version). As with most things, it's not the tools that are the deciding factor, it's the programmer/scientist/mathematician using the tools that makes the difference.

    A favorite story of mine concerning the difference between having a calculator and knowing how to use one: As the scientists in the Manhattan project were waiting in the trenches/bunkers for the first trinity test, one of them started ripping little pieces of paper and just before the bomb went off, tossed them in the air. After the bomb went off, he paced off the distance they had been blown, did a bunch of calculations and gave the first estimate of the yield of the bomb. Accurate to within 20-40% I recall.

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  70. TRIVIA: When was Apple first at SC Conference? by hopscotch · · Score: 1

    To put money into a conference booth, usually means that a company is making some serious consideration for that market.

    So here's the trivia question:

    When did Apple Computer start being an exhibitor at the International Conference for High Performance Computing and Communications?

    Apple's been aware of the Top500 list for a several years.

    Supercomputers used to be 32-bit with the Top500 list accepting 32-bit results. At the time Apple started attended the SC Conference, I asked Jack D. if he would accept the 32-bit benchmark results for the Top500.

    At the time Jack said no -- adding back 32-bit would be confusing to the community.

    It took some effort and many voices to convince Apple to pay attention to the scientific market. It's nice to see them headed towards the Top500.

    --Hopscotch

    HINT: 9991

  71. Re:To quote G. W. Bush: "Enough is Enough" by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1
    Yes. Yes it will.
    Bzzt. Unfortunately Virtual PC doesn't work on G5s yet... Also, Microsoft hasn't given a timeframe of when they will have the problem fixed. Until then, there is always Bochs, which given the speed of the G5, might actually be fast. :^)
  72. win for Altivec by sharrestom · · Score: 1

    This really is a win for Altivec, which is after all the spawn of AIM, but one would have to credit Apple for not giving up on it after Moto faltered, as well as the near flawless G5 design. IBM should be especially pleased, perhaps enough to incorporate Altivec into the Power6.

  73. Good comparison.. by Junta · · Score: 1

    AIST is getting a similar scale Linux cluster using Opteron processors, a bit larger (are all the G5 dual proc boxes? If so things are still in the same ball park). about 1100 dual opteron systems, and a few other Intel boxes tossed in. One good article is here.

    I have submitted this as story, but it evidently never news like the G5 cluster... Linux and AMD no longer our favorite 'underdogs' anymore?

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  74. Re:Two things you are not by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    Wrong.
    A McDonald's cluster of Big Macs is called "Happy Meal".

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  75. When will we get over the bigger d*ck battle? by majikfox · · Score: 1

    Great, someone knows how to cram fifteen thousand computers into a specially-designed warehouse and make them go fast. Meanwhile, in another part of the world known as `reallity,' people realize there are more important things to worry about than who has the larger penis. More computers != research. There's a lot of people who could be more productive in their use of the electricity, man hours, hardware and system resources that these computers are using. I submit to you that if they had given all of these Apple computers to universities and research facilities all over the world, man's greater goals would have been much closer to being achieved than they would have been with all of these machines crammed into a warehouse.

  76. Re:How Many... by macmurph · · Score: 1

    And how many olympic-sized swimming pools it would fit in.

  77. Typical Govt Bloat and overspending by wayoutwest · · Score: 1

    Costs millions more than the Virginia Tech project and at its highest can only do 11.7 TFlops - 1/3 less performance, but then it's just our tax dollars at work.

  78. I wanted to like iTunes... by Control-Z · · Score: 1

    iTunes has problems. If you read the forums, people are reporting that iTunes REARRANGES your existing MP3 files into it's own directory scheme. Is that rude or what? Granted there is an option to turn it off, but what a bad default setting if you don't catch it!

    For me, .99 a song is still too much money. But maybe I could live with that.

    But it also won't download or let you create MP3 files from music you download from them. I've got a car player with a 40GB hard drive that only supports MP3 and WMA files. I'm sure there's a way to make MP3s out of the AAC files, but I have a particular dislike for artifical hurdles like that. Computers are supposed to make things easy. The majority of portable music players do MP3, why support Windows if you're not going to support the players that Windows people use? Yeah I know, "copy protection", "DRM", mumble mumble... Well I don't give a shit about copy protection, I want to listen to MY music WHEN and WHERE I want to listen to it.

    But the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back is that iTunes only supports Win2k and WinXP. I run Win98SE (same installtion for 2.5 years on a heavily-used gaming/Internet machine.) I'm sure it's easier for them to only support 2k/XP, but there's no technical reason it couldn't run on Win98SE. I'm not changing OS's to run iTunes, that's too much to ask.

    1. Re:I wanted to like iTunes... by Control-Z · · Score: 1


      Whoops, wrong article. There were 2 Apple stories in a row there...

  79. Re:Simulating Nuclear Weapons is more the CPU cycl by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

    Experienced nuke engineers have been on the open market for the last 12 years, 59 counting spies that sold out the Manhattan project to the commies in the first place. There is a lot of knowledge out there if the price is right.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  80. Why VirtualPC doesn't work on G5s by YE · · Score: 1

    It would be only fair to note why VirtualPC for the G5 isn't just a simple port or recompile: IBM removed the little-endian mode in PowerPC 970, which was what VirtualPC extensively uses. Implementing a mode where VirtualPC emulates a little-endian CPU on a big-endian CPU, while technically possible, is an enormous task, and it even might not be feasible (as in "resulting emulation runs too slow").

    1. Re:Why VirtualPC doesn't work on G5s by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      IIRC the PowerPC architecture doesn't have "endian modes", it instead has specific instructions such as Load and Store in both endian modes. That means MS has been FUD'ing on their reasons to stop VirtualPC.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:Why VirtualPC doesn't work on G5s by YE · · Score: 1

      YDRC (you don't remember correctly). Do a simple google search, e.g. for "PowerPC endian mode 970".

  81. Setting Everyone Up For Dissapointment by ablair · · Score: 1

    Headlining news stories like this are the cause of overblown expectations and inevitable dissapointment when the actual stats come out. Of *course* 5% of procs will run at close to 80% of theoretical maximum; here Wired is doing a simple linear extrapolation of this to all 1,100 procs which is completely unrealistic. Big Mac will be lucky to reach 60% of tmax, and more likely will achieve closer to 50%, being relatively untried and untuned.

    This is undoubtedly an incredibly cost-effective machine, but it will be lucky to get in the top 10 at all. Number 2 is a pipe dream.

    1. Re:Setting Everyone Up For Dissapointment by mcdawson · · Score: 1

      I would say that its "good" overblown hype. Yes, the final % is probably closer to 60%, and they'll need to get near that to make the top ten. However, I would say is good hype--esp with the Dell comparision (also a "theortical" TFlop #, I believe). It gets the G5 & Apple noticed in more places. It would probably get people who would not have considered Apple before, to look at them. I bet there's still a lot of people who think of Apple's as "toys". So I think the hype is good as a wakeup call. If VT can actually make the top 10, that would be great, as it would justify a lot of the hype...

  82. You are grounded mister!!! by Mother+Coward · · Score: 1

    Anonymous, is that you? I thought I told you to clean up your room and stop playing on that damned computer. It is past your bedtime and I don't want to have to come back here and tell you a second time -- I'm warning you...One more troll out of you and I'm taking away that damned Mac SE! -- Oh, what? You didn't want your little friends to know that you use that old thing? Don't make me tell them about the Justin Timberlake posters on your wall.

    Okay, I love you too, dear. Sweet dreams.

    --
    Mother Coward. Making the world a safer place for Mac Zealots since 2003...
  83. VT Cluster already in 82nd place! by mcdawson · · Score: 1

    If I did my calculations correctly, the VT cluster is already in 82nd place, with a score of 0.809 TF (beating out an IBM 252 sized cluster of Itanium 2 1 GHz chips) at 0.798 TF. The quote was for 128 processors, or 64 nodes at 80% effeciency--17.4 TF/1100*64*.8=0.809 TF I've seen some suggestions that using stock GBit Ethernet would lower the rate 30%, so a "stock" system would come in at .567 TF, or 146th place, slightly behind a SP Power3 375 MHz 16 way/ 520 setup.

  84. It's also only fair to note... by FredFnord · · Score: 1

    ...that VPC (and SoftWindows before it) ran just fine on earlier PPC processors that didn't have the little-endian mode. It did help, but it's hardly a deal-breaker.

    -fred

    --
    Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
  85. Go on, go to war. by FredFnord · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, there are dozens of countries which treat their people worse than IRAQ did. And, in fact, the average person in IRAQ is and will (the US government admits) worse off now than they were under Sadaam.

    I'm all for just wars, if you can find me one. But one where the US government lied to its populace about the justifications for the war, rushed into it without any international support, and alienated basically every other country on earth except for Britan (the citizens of which are now lynching their leadership because of it) isn't it.

    Oddly enough, I was okay on the war in Afghanistan, because, well, the leadership there were pretty much a bunch of bastards who tried to kill lots of us. Of course, we destroyed the country, then promised to help rebuild it, and then completely failed to even BEGIN to keep our word, so people are starving to death daily there and other countries are cleaning up after our mess.

    But being the world's only superpower is evidently all about being able to kill lots of people, destory their homes, ruin their livelihood, distrupt their way of life, and then not feel sorry for them, because they were dumb enough not to be born Americans.

    God bless America.

    -fred

    --
    Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    1. Re:Go on, go to war. by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Fixing 20 and 25 years of shitty leadership, respectively, can't be done in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months or even 2 years. How long did it take to get (West) Germany and Japan back up to pre-war levels of GDP, 10 years, 20? I also fail to see the rapid sucesses in Somalia, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia. Saddam was a problem Bush 41 left 12 years ago, even his son wasn't going to correct the situation until 3000 Americans ended up dead. Saddam has worked on WMD, he has supported terrorist regime, and he and his sons are far worse war criminals that Milosoveich ever dreamed of being. Given time, Iraq will be the jewel of the middle east and cause the downfall every brutal regime in the region, from Iran to Lybia.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  86. Fortunately, Microsoft hasn't bought Carmack... by FredFnord · · Score: 1

    ...yet...

    -fred

    --
    Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
  87. Er... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    It was not and is not illegal to export computers.

    Computers above a certain processing power cannot be exported to certain countries; countries you also can't sell arms to.

    The same went for encryption.. it's not that you were not allowed to export strong crypto; you were not allowed to export strong crypto without a PERMIT, which was often attainable.

  88. Discount...Looks like they OVER paid... by CptTripps · · Score: 1

    "Dongarra said the cost is so low he questioned whether the college got a special discount. Lockhart couldn't be reached for an answer"

    If you do the math, 1,100 X $2,999 (street price of a DP G5) It looks like it SHOULD have cost only. $3,298,900.00. Now they need racks, so let's figure $800 for a decent rack and shelves to hold 12 CPUs. (That's how many they have stacked in each rack) That takes you to about 92 racks, or $73,000. You are now at $3,372,233.33. Even adding in a building, they are still WELL under the 5.4mil.

    Good for them...

    --


    My .sig can beat up your honor student.
  89. Re:Still costs nearly twice as much as the UT 'put by The+Tessellator · · Score: 1

    Actually, not. The $5M cost for the VT cluster includes infrastructure like racks, networking, and facility cooling updates. The $2.5M figure quoted by UT was for boxes only. I don't have the VT figures in front of me but I would guess that the G5 only costs for the VT cluster are likely close to the $3-3.5m mark. The performance being better than 4X and the box costs being close makes VT's cluster a much better deal.