Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Amazing Shrinking Supercomputer

Posted by Hemos on from the i-hide-him-in-my-pocket dept.

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.

5 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Supercomputing for small business by mrtroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 :) Then maybe you wouldnt be so small anymore. Maybe you are choosing the price AND quantity you are selling...

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  2. Re:Priorities.. by kinnell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why do we need to have small, power-efficient supercomputers?

    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
  3. Re:Priorities.. by rwoodsco · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?


    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
  4. Re:Priorities.. by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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=

  5. Re:Priorities.. by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.