Slashdot Mirror


IBM's Blue Gene powered by Linux

bigjnsa500 writes "Linux will be the main operating system for IBM's upcoming family of 'Blue Gene' supercomputers--a major endorsement for the operating system and the open-source computing model it represents. Blue Gene/L, the first member of the family, will contain 65,000 processors and 16 trillion bytes of memory. Due in 2004 or 2005, the system will be able to perform 200 trillion calculations per second. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will use the system for performing nuclear weapons simulations." Blue Gene has been announced for some time, but it's cool to see how it's shaping up.

5 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. in other news by t0ny · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, Levi's has announced a lawsuit against IBM, citing the name of the server line could confuse their customers.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  2. Re:Um, maybe IBM should concentrate on making mone by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 5, Funny
    not having a profit-making strategy.

    Ahhh, you are forgetting the army of overpriced IBM consultants that you'll have to hire to install the thing.



  3. Re:How many apples is that? by ocelotbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, IBM makes the G5, or rather, the PPC970. I think they of all people would know whether or not the processor is suitable for the task at hand. Don't you agree?

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  4. Re:How many apples is that? by tychay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You say:

    The g5 supercomputer mentioned on slashdot before never performed what it originally claimed.

    What was the claim? The only bogus claims I heard regarding the Terascale (G5 cluster) were:

    1. Ignorant people taking Rpeak and multiplying by the number of machines and,
    2. Wired taking an accurate claim of the clusters performance on 128 CPUs and extrapolating it to 2200. In the article, the manager of the top500 noted that the G5 cluster might take #3 and contend for #2.
    3. A whole bunch of FUD from people like you who have some reason to wish the people working on this project ill simply because they chose Macs to do it.

    Then a New York Times report using old data reported 7.1 teraflops Rmax--enough to put it at #3 on the old list and #4 on the new--NYT forgot to mention that there have since been three new clusters that made the top 10, one of which slightly edged out the Terascale.

    Of course, by the time that was reported, the figure was revised to 8.3 Tflops and now, officially reported (both on the current Top500 and by the head of Terascale) as 9.555 Tflops (60% efficiency) with the stipulation they could probably get 10% more. A pretty umapproachable #3 spot in the Fall500 and the first sub-$100 million dollar system to break the 10 teraflop mark.

    Go look at the current benchmarks, where are the Pentium clusters that are above it? Where are the Itanium clusters above it? Where are the Athlon clusters above it? Oh, I'm sure there will be some (probably in the Spring2004 500), but where are they all right now? How much do the current ones on the list cost (answer: no less than $30 million). Sounds to me the wishful-thinking, poor-reporting Wired and the Mac zealots were closer to the truth than FUD-meisters and the anti-Mac zealots.

    The most efficient top 10 supercomputer right now is also the most powerful: The NEC EarthSimulator at about 80%. I'd imagine we should expect a 60-80% efficiency from the big budget Blue Gene/L. And in my book there is nothing wrong with the current 60% efficency of Terascale--anyway it probably says a lot more about how good Infiniband is than it does about how good the Mac is.

    But the writing is on the wall. There is nothing special about the the 970 (G5), Virginia Tech could have done the same thing with an Opteron or Itanium2--it would have taken more processors and cost twice as much: ~$10 million best offer for the systems as opposed to $5.7 million list price paid for the Macs (subtracting $1.5 million for the Infiniband cards, routers, and cabling).

    The take home point is not that they did it with Macs or Mac OS X instead of (your favorite CPU) and Linux. The take home point is: these guys built a top 10 supercomputer in a fraction of the time (months as opposed to years) at a fraction of the cost (<$10 million as opposed to >$100 million).

    Yes, like the Crays of the old days (and today) there will always be those who need something like Blue Gene/L and IBM is happy to supply them. But a whole new generation of supercomputers will be built on-demand and out of commodity PC hardware and a good set of software running on an OS that doesn't charge for all the CALs. Right now the 970 is easily the best performer for LinPak. So much so, they can pay educational list price which included such worthless features as an Apple-tooled case, overpriced RAM, gigabit cards, and Radeon graphics cards, firewire, usb2.0, digital audio, iTunes and other iApps, and a OpenGL based desktop. Since the 970 is made by IBM, I'd hazard a guess that IBM would be happy to supply these people too. Whether they choose to run Linux, MacOS X, or something else.

  5. Bug report by S.I.O. · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Linus,

    the kernel is becoming slightly unstable with more than 10 trillion bytes and 65000 CPUs, please try to reproduce the situation. See the attached memory dump file.