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.

13 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Priorities.. by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Should the priority be making faster supercomputers (but large) or smaller supercomputers (but the same speed)? This one seems to be a step in both directions, but I wonder if they're sacrificing speed for size (or vice-versa).

    1. 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
    2. 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
    3. 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=

    4. 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.

  2. Finally! by clifgriffin · · Score: 5, Funny

    My mom wouldn't let me have one because they take up so much space!

    Clif

    Blogzine.net
    Fortress of Insanity

  3. Scale and costs by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, how long will it be before these become commoditised for sme's ?

    Something that fits into the space of a 30" TV set (how about dimensions, guys ?) is presumably about half to 1/3 a standard rack in a co-lo. 2 Teraflops of processing power ought to be able to comfortably shift the bottleneck to the bandwidth, even for database-orientated sites ...

    I think people's cost expectations are going to be significantly impacted by the size of this - if it's small, it must be cheap, right ? (wrong, but try telling them...)

    Fantastic acheivement, btw, kudos to the man in blue :-)

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Scale and costs by stevesliva · · Score: 5, Informative

      No exact dimensions, but there are some photos here.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  4. 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]
  5. Sigh. Pravda nyet Isvestia, Isvestia nyet Pravda by heironymouscoward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Take your standard technology curve (aka Moore's Law), take any specification/cost point, then move ahead an arbitrary point in time and wonders of wonders, it costs less and is smaller and does more.

    Yes, one day supercomputers will fit into your wristwatch! What's more, they already do! If you use an ancient measure from, say, 50 years ago.

    It's very disappointing to see technology always reduced to whizz-bang figures that are in fact meaningless. What about the impact on our society? What about the capability for good and for bad? What do "good" and "bad" mean, anyhow? How do I know I even exist? What does "I" even mean?

    Now, that kind of stuff is worth discussing.

    OK, go ahead and mod me as a troll now, if you can't think of an intelligent answer.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  6. SHOCK! by RMH101 · · Score: 5, Funny
    computers get/smaller faster!

    In other news, the price of petrol increases.

  7. Small = Dense = More power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work on the project.

    We're packing 1024 compute nodes (each node having two CPU cores) into a rack. The nodes are small and based on the PowerPC 440, with beefed up floating point. It has to be air cooled - water is a PITA.

    The finished machine will still be quite large - 64 racks with miles of cables. And that doesn't count disk drives. There isn't a single disk drive on the thing - the customer provides the filesystem, which will also be another beefy set of machines. It requires a new building.

    The machine featured in the article is just half a rack. It is still respectable, coming in at #73 on top500.org. Might be quite useful for business and small scale scientific in it's current form. (This is far more than my alma matter had access too.)

  8. Small Size Critical As Speed Increases. by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    The increase in speed is related to the reduction in size.

    For a moment, let's pretend that electricity within a wire travels at the speed of light.

    Now, let's pretend that we wish to carry pulses of electricity from one end of the computer to the other at a very high speed.

    At some point, the distance the signal has to travel will become significant to the speed of the computer.

    This is already happening in PCs. If you take a close look at the motherboard in your computer, chances are you'll see weird places where the traces just zig-zag back and forth (notice the angles on them, that's not by accident either, but I'm not going to try to explain a fourth-year university course in microwave and RF design here). These zig-zags add length to the traces so that they have the same length as other traces within the same bus, and all the signals on that bus arrive at the same time. Think of them as being "equal length headers", if you're into the throb of a big-block V8.

    Length of interconnecting wires is non-trivial at this point. Stray capacitance and inductance caused by any conductor are non-trivial at this point. As a result, a terrific limiting factor to the speed of a computer is now its size.

    Power consumption is also related. Modern ICs are made of millions of MOSFET transistors which behave as switches. These switches are not perfect: during the transition between a logic high and a logic low, the transistors spend time in the linear state where they are resistive. As a result, they waste energy as heat.

    Stray capacitance and inductance - even within the junctions of the transistors themselves - slow their ability to switch instantaneously. As a result, they must be made as small as possible to reduce capacitance (C) and inductance (L).

    This also explains why newer generations of a processor can run faster than their predecessors: smaller and smaller features on the IC mean less stray C and L, which means that the transistors can switch states faster, which means that they spend less time in the linear state and therefore heat up less. This means less energy wasted as heat.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.