Slashdot Mirror
The Amazing Shrinking Supercomputer
mE123 writes "It would seem that IBM is trying to change what we all think of as super computers. Their new Blue Gene family of super computers is meant to be 6 times faster, consume 1/15 of the power and be 1/10 the size of current models. The prototype is already number 73 (with 2 teraflops) on the list of the most powerful super computers and it's only "roughly the size of a 30-inch television". They are hoping to be able to make it up to 360 Teraflops using only 64 racks." We covered this a bit earlier, but without the level of details.
Why do we need to have small, power-efficient supercomputers? Isn't the main goal of the supercomputer to be fast as hell? Granted, if this can be achieved while simultaneously minimizing power and size then by all means go for it. However, as stated by my parent, what sacrafices are being made?
That aside, I would happily take a computer the size of a 30" TV if it was SUPER!
If you could make something top 100 for 30-60k, it wouldnt be top 100 for long. Because then other people would pay 200k for something twice as fast.
:) Then maybe you wouldnt be so small anymore. Maybe you are choosing the price AND quantity you are selling...
You can either choose price, or speed, but not both. So do you want something for 30-60k? Or do you want something top 100?
Your small business should take some economics
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Very few businesses/institutions can afford, nor need an Earth Simulator. Big power hungry supercomputers need specialised buildings with sufficient power supply and heat dissipation capabilities. By creating a small, power efficient supercomputer which can simply be plugged in in the server room, they open up an entirely new market.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
You need small power-efficient supercomputers so that you don't need a dedicated 100MW coal-fired power plant next door for each 10 teraflop building.
Imagine the cooling system necessary for a building which dissipates the energy normally used by a small city!
This is why bluegene is cool; they realize that at the high end, power is going to become the limiting factor, and they designed their architecture accordingly.
Bobby
Plus, once you have a powerful, (relatively) energy efficient computer in a smaller package, you can use them as building blocks to scale a larger installation.
Modular installation = better able to match requirements without having to build entire system from scratch = more cost effective solution for some (most?) customers.
I think the "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" joke may actually pretty close to the point!
=Smidge=
I'm not a big fan of super computers. I mean, it's kind of cool, but to me, it's just throwing a whole bunch of computers at the problem, more or less.
That being the case, why aren't distributed apps considered as part of the Super Computer list? I mean, SETI@Home has got to be far and away, #1 in terms of computing power. Granted, it's not in 1 integrated piece of hardware, and Berkeley doesn't own all the hardware, but I still think these things ought to be considered, at least to make it more realistic about who actually has the most computing power.
Just my little rant.
was already having to figure the propagation delay of signals (traveling at near the speed of light) into their large multirack systems. I can only imagine one of things driving the desire for smaller supercomputers is to speed up the clock by reducing the delay across the physical size of the box.
--Rob
It seems that making computers small and efficient makes them fast as hell. Small = less distance for signals to travel = shorter times to wait for the signals to travel, and efficient = less heat given off = higher possile clock speeds.
Eat at Joe's.
If supercomputers were ubiquitous, more uses would be found. So I don't see how "need" comes into the picture. Now who can afford one? That is a good question. If they were affordable you'd see needs popping up all over.
Lasers Controlled Games!
I think it's hilarious that we still talk in terms of computers taking up a mere half a tennis court. Once upon a time, computers took up an entire room - and they still do.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
While progress in making supercomputers more efficient in terms of power usage and space, the widespread adoption of supercomputers is still really hampered by functionality. The majority of supercomputers are used for modeling, simulations, or code breaking. This limits their usage to academic and government institutions. These break through only help those kinds of institutions afford a super computer. I would think that most businesses have little use for that kind of raw computing power. Their computing bottlenecks are more related to transactions per time as opposed to calculations per time.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.