Slashdot Mirror


SGI & NASA Plan 10240-Processor Altix Cluster

green pizza writes "NASA has announced plans to cluster twenty 512-processor Silicon Graphics Inc Altix supercomputers connected to a 500-terabyte SGI InfiniteStorage SAN. The Altix uses Itanium2 CPUs running Linux atop an Origin 3000-derrived architecture. NASA and SGI scaled Linux to 512 CPUs late last year. There are also strong hints that SGI plans to bring its clustered ATI graphics to Altix in the near future. Lots of neat big iron project on the horizon!"

202 comments

  1. What would this be used for? by notbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would you do with 10k processors hooked up to 500 terabytes? Sounds like you could replace every machine Nasa has with an account on this thing.

    Sounds quite insane, I'd love to see the practical reasons for this.

    1. Re:What would this be used for? by turgid · · Score: 4, Funny
      Sounds quite insane, I'd love to see the practical reasons for this.

      With the heat given off by all those itanics, I'm sure they could do some pretty good real-word research into heat shield materials and rocket engine nozzles.

    2. Re:What would this be used for? by MoonFog · · Score: 4, Informative

      NASA has picked computer maker Silicon Graphics Inc. and chipmaker Intel to develop a major supercomputer based on Linux to simulate space exploration and conduct other research, SGI announced Tuesday.

      Read it here

    3. Re:What would this be used for? by christophersaul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Calculating things very quickly maybe? Just a thought. 500TB? I've never seen the need for more than 640k.

    4. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll compile Gentoo on it of course. Everyone knows TEH GENTOY IS TEH GRETAST!!!!111!!one

    5. Re:What would this be used for? by wwest4 · · Score: 1

      For an aerospace org, a cluster of this type would be used primarily for aerodynamical analysis work.

    6. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Put windows me on it and see how many times you can open and close Photoshop before you run out of memory.

    7. Re:What would this be used for? by RPI+Geek · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA:
      By boosting its computing capacity ten-fold through Project Columbia, the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Facility (NAS) will be able to more effectively handle such critical projects as simulating future space missions, projecting the impact of human activity on weather patterns, and designing safe and efficient space exploration vehicles and aircraft. The present collaboration builds upon the highly successful 8-year partnership that last year developed the world's first 512-processor Linux server - based on standard, "off-the-shelf" microprocessor and open source technology - the SGI Altix at NASA Ames Research Center named 'Kalpana' after Columbia astronaut and Ames alumna Kalpana Chawla.

      Modeling and building on a business relationship.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    8. Re:What would this be used for? by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

      For the conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landings were faked a collaboration between NASA and SGI on simulated exploration will just provide a basis to think that the Mars missions will not only be faked, they wont even use real actors next and the whole mission will be CGI.

      So when we do 'land' on Mars, if the astonauts burst into a song and dance extravaganza during the planting the flag ceremony then the job was probably outsourced to India. If the ceremony involves a 10 hour trek up a mountain and is interrupted by hordes of attacking Martians that must be defeated by the 6 astronauts then they probably got Peter Jackson to do it. If the whole mission is really lame and not quite what you were hoping for, look no futher than George Lucas.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    9. Re:What would this be used for? by onyx+pi · · Score: 1

      SGI was founded around 1983. Moon landings faked by Nasa and SGI?

    10. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For an aerospace org, a cluster of this type would be used primarily for aerodynamical analysis work

      Yes, for an aerospace org, a cluster of this type would be used primarily aerospace type stuff...

    11. Re:What would this be used for? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2, Funny
      What would you do with 10k processors hooked up to 500 terabytes?

      It can do realtime hologram movies, and pop the popcorn while you're watching it.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    12. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, they want to be really ready when Doom 3 ships!!!

    13. Re:What would this be used for? by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Be... wait! it is already!! whoah!!!

      --

      Your head a splode
    14. Re:What would this be used for? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Real-time Computational Fluid Dynamics for an entire spacecraft including modeling the interactions of the layers and behavior at boundaries. Or maybe they can actually balance the NASA checkbook now! :)

    15. Re:What would this be used for? by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know that WOSH! you just heard? That was the sound of the fscking joke going right over your head.

      There should be an IQ test before one is allowed to post to /. I reached this conclusion when I was told I was new here and shouldn't respond to trolls. The user sending me the email had a UID about the level of yours.

    16. Re:What would this be used for? by wwest4 · · Score: 1

      what's your point, vanessa? aerospace orgs are not limited to doing aerodynamics. they also do structural, mechanical, thermal, design, tech pubs, repair. as opposed to a pharma company, who might use such a cluster, but not for aerodynamical work. geez.

    17. Re:What would this be used for? by escher · · Score: 1

      I've never seen the need for more than 640k.

      You've never had to implement "business logic" in VisualBASIC, have you?...

    18. Re:What would this be used for? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      And we can always work up SGI's late start to another conspiracy. I think an IQ test shouldn't be needed for posting, per se, but it should be used for affecting your moderation. Anything below 100 gets you a -2, 110 is a -1, 120 is a 0, 135 is a +1, 150 is a +2.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    19. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I reached this conclusion when I was told I was new here and shouldn't respond to trolls. The user sending me the email had a UID about the level of yours.

      You must be new here...

      (Besides, how do we know you didn't just swipe that user account from someone or get it on ebay?)

    20. Re:What would this be used for? by niteice · · Score: 0

      If they get the clustered graphics in time. Hell, we could put Doom 3 in software rendering on this.

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    21. Re:What would this be used for? by HermanZA · · Score: 1

      It is to create realistic movies of men walking on Mars. There were many complaints about the Moon movies, so they have to do something about that. on the whole, the super computer is much cheaper than actually going to Mars, so it is money well spent and accords with the latest budget reductions...

    22. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doom 3 at 100 Megapixels =0
      Software-based rendering...

    23. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worst grammer-nazi ever....

    24. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      business logic?

      how do you implement an oxymoron?

    25. Re:What would this be used for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Or maybe they can actually balance the NASA checkbook now! :)"

      yeah, but if they did then the other government agencies would have to follow their lead...

    26. Re:What would this be used for? by escher · · Score: 1

      Exception handling. Exception handling cures ALL!!

  2. Good News for intel by turgid · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is great news for intel. They will double the number of itanics shipped in a single deal!

    1. Re:Good News for intel by Agent+Green · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good news for Intel indeed, but wouldn't the same deployment with AMD Opterons been cheaper AND faster??

      --
      // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
      // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    2. Re:Good News for intel by musikit · · Score: 3, Funny

      aye but they most likely would have spent the saved money on air conditioning.

    3. Re:Good News for intel by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Itanium has better floating-point performance than Opteron, although the price/performance is worse. There are no 512-way Opteron systems; maybe NASA likes to write shared-memory parallel applications.

    4. Re:Good News for intel by cnkeller · · Score: 4, Informative
      Good news for Intel indeed, but wouldn't the same deployment with AMD Opterons been cheaper AND faster??

      Well, until the final numbers come out, we aren't speculating on performance. Needless to say we hope to claim the top slot in computing power. Also, keep in mind that parts availability is a major concern. We are assembling the system to be fully up and running by SuperComputing '05 in November. Intel has fully committed to delivering all 10K CPU's with no problems. Also, perhaps the biggest reason for Intel, is SGI was chosen as the vendor and they use Intel.

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    5. Re:Good News for intel by cnkeller · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sigh, that's Supercomputing '04 in November. Of this year. Sorry about that.

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    6. Re:Good News for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is great news for intel. They will double the number of itanics shipped in a single deal!

      yes, for sure. they bought a congressman to make this happen. (no joke, trust me.)

      and as usual, real science at nasa is going to suffer for a waste money on unneeded computing capacity just so the US can prove we have a bigger dick than the japanese.

      -pissed off nasa worker

    7. Re:Good News for intel by ajlitt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really? Considering the Opteron 850 maxes out at 89W while the Itanium 1.5 is 107W, by each vendor's own datasheets.

    8. Re:Good News for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that is impressive. Congrats on the project management well done if it all comes together nicely!

    9. Re:Good News for intel by afidel · · Score: 1

      I propose a new measure of chip perfomance Specfp_base_2000/Watt thermal load. That should give you a good idea of a chips potential for use in massive supercomputer applications. Sadly the Opteron does worse than both the Itanium 2 and the PPC970 in this measurement.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:Good News for intel by Shinobi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agent Green:

      Cheaper? Not likely, you'd have to buy the high-speed interconnect to make it worthwhile. And the Opterons perform fairly poorly in larger clusters, since they have the NUMA latency penalties locally on each node. Checking the Top500 list, a cluster of 256 Opteron 246 using Infiniband will perform worse than a cluster of 256 Xeon 2.8GHz using Infiniband. The scariest example is that a cluster of 256 P4's@3GHz using Gigabit Ethernet outperforms the Opteron cluster.....

      Important to note is that the Linpack test doesn't stress the interconnect that much. The more a task stresses the interconnect, the more the Opteron cluster will be penalized. There's one exception though, and that's the Cray Octiga Bay systems.... And if you go that route, it costs _at_ _least_ as much as an Altix system

    11. Re:Good News for intel by turgid · · Score: 4, Informative
      There are no 512-way Opteron systems; maybe NASA likes to write shared-memory parallel applications.

      Not yet, but Cray is working on it in something called Red Storm.

      Itanium's "better" floating point performance than Opteron is confined to some pretty specialised benchmarks. Over all, Opteron is a more efficient design, runs cooler than itanium, has better compilers, better software support, is cheaper and had more room to scale to much higher clock speeds.

    12. Re:Good News for intel by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      SGI and Cray have been working on I2 systems for at least a year or two before Opteron was released. People dismiss Itanium2 but it does perform pretty well, much better than the original Itanium.

      I think Itanium has some features not available in Opteron. One I know for sure is available lock-stepping for extra fault tolerance, according to an AMD engineer I asked, AMD has no plans for it.

    13. Re:Good News for intel by fitten · · Score: 1

      I propose a new measure of chip perfomance Specfp_base_2000/Watt thermal load.

      The embedded world (embedded as in Mercury, CSPI, Sky, etc.) has been using FLOPS/Watt (FLOPS per Watt) and FLOPS/m^^3 (FLOPS per cubic meter) for a long time as they have always had to compromise heat vs. computational performance vs. volume.

    14. Re:Good News for intel by cide1 · · Score: 1

      Isn't Cray just a division of SGI now? It seems that they are moving more and more in the direction of the old Cray.

      --
      -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
    15. Re:Good News for intel by turgid · · Score: 2, Informative
      Isn't Cray just a division of SGI now?

      No, SGI bought part of Cray a few years back and Sun bought another part (that's where the Sun E10k came from). SGI sold it's part of Cray to a company called Tera which then changed its name to Cray.

    16. Re:Good News for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crays Red Storm uses Opteron 40 Terraflop or so.
      This SGI beast har a peak of more than 60Terraflop.

      The Red Storm cost $90 mill
      The SGI machine cost around $45 mill with storage.

    17. Re:Good News for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...SGI bought part of Cray a few years back and Sun bought another part (that's where the Sun E10k came from). SGI sold it's part of Cray to a company called Tera which then changed its name to Cray.

      Cray will now be suing Sun and SGI claiming infringement of mrghf mrghf mrghf mrghf and ahh*cough*, sniff, shuffle, sniff *cough*.

  3. Doom by Klar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wonder if that thing could play Doom3?

    1. Re:Doom by akeyes · · Score: 1

      It could run it for your entire LAN party.

      All you would need is a slightly larger scale of this or this.

  4. Imagine... by mikiN · · Score: 0, Redundant

    a Beowulf cluster of those...err, never mind.

    --
    The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    1. Re:Imagine... by Xpilot · · Score: 1

      Yeah but can it run lin...errr... damn.

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
  5. SGI & NASA Plan 10240-Processor Altix Cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that brings the number of Itanium users to 7.

  6. Pre-renderd concept art of the cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  7. Honest question: Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really do wonder, why did SGI and IBM invest so much time and money on Linux, instead of e.g. NetBSD? I understand IBM is currently using Linux to push their middleware and J2EE stuff, but they could as well use a BSD and not even need to give stuff back to the community.

    Mike Bouma

    1. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason? The License. While BSD License really is the most free, it would allow IBM to put a lot of effort into it, and then have MS swope in, modify it, and sell with a sorts of closed APIs, etc.

      In essence, the BSD license would allow the creation of another Unix model where the core is identical or just similar, but the APIs would be used to lock users in. How would that solve IBM's problem? Or for that matter any Hardware vendors problem? It would not.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by mrm677 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason? The License. While BSD License really is the most free, it would allow IBM to put a lot of effort into it, and then have MS swope in, modify it, and sell with a sorts of closed APIs, etc.

      In essence, the BSD license would allow the creation of another Unix model where the core is identical or just similar, but the APIs would be used to lock users in. How would that solve IBM's problem? Or for that matter any Hardware vendors problem? It would not.


      Finally an answer that doesn't involve ranting and raving about GPL/freedom/blah blah blah. Thanks for the simple common-sense answer to this question I wondered myself.

    3. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by Karzz1 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the hassle of supporting multiple platforms. NASA (as well as IBM) currently has a lot of expertise with Linux not to mention the installed base. If there is no good reason (price? no, performance? no, security? I doubt this thing would be on a network that is publicly accessible, so no, etc..) why change?

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    4. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by powerlinekid · · Score: 1

      NetBSD is hardly the OS you'd want running on one of these machines. If you had to pick a BSD I suppose it would be FreeBSD. However, I think Linux scales further which would help explain why you see it on the big clusters instead of BSD.

      NetBSD for portability.
      OpenBSD for security.
      FreeBSD for well I'm not actually sure, I use Linux instead.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    5. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your welcome.

    6. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The GPL is not about giving the source to the world. It is about giving the source to whoever you give the binaries to. In this case, NASA. I would not be surprised if SGI got NASA to agree to not give the source to anybody else (I believe that is legal within the GPL, but IANAL). I have always been amazed that nobody who is doing GPL software on hardware has not added a "eula" that states that they will not share the source with others, except for where the hardware goes.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you meant "you're".

      You're welcome!

    8. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it was pre-coffee.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering "why linux?", but for a different reason.

      Are they really investing all this money to see how well Linux will scale? Or is this a serious project that they need to be positive will scale? I don't understand why they aren't just using IRIX. Makes more sense from a business point. But then again, maybe this is just a "look what I can do" kind of project...but sure seems like a waste of money if that's the case.

    10. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by LuSiDe · · Score: 1

      IRIX == MIPS.

      The story i heard is that SGI tried to port IRIX to the Itanium but it got blasted off for whatever reason.

      Developing the MIPS costs loads of time and expensive engineers. This is money SGI simply does't have. As you might be aware of their financial state isn't very good nor it has been the past few years. I can see where they're coming from at this point.

      Finally i think they're pretty damn serious on this with NASA being the primary customer which they use to attract other customers.

      At least that's how i see it.

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
    11. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      I would not be surprised if SGI got NASA to agree to not give the source to anybody else (I believe that is legal within the GPL, but IANAL).

      No, it's not legal, it's adding restrictions to redistribution, which the GPL explicitly forbids.

      However, knowing SGI, and the way they've behaved, I would be very surprised if they tried to pull something like that.

      The fact is, SGI has benefitted greatly from the GPL'd linux and it would be quite rude to try and make their changes proprietary.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    12. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would not be surprised if SGI got NASA to agree to not give the source to anybody else (I believe that is legal within the GPL, but IANAL).

      No need to be a lawyer, the GPL is very readable. Section 6 of the GNU GPL (emphasis mine):

      6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

      Clear enough?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the original poster made the point about the fanaticism and rudeness of GPL/FSF proponents. Thank you for help to prove it.

    14. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      While BSD License really is the most free, it would allow IBM to put a lot of effort into it, and then have MS swope in, modify it, and sell with a sorts of closed APIs, etc.

      No they wouldn't, because under the BSD license, IBM wouldn't have to publicly distribute their modifications to the NetBSD code.

      The real reason IBM go with Linux? They have more expertise with it than any of the BSD's.

    15. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, when they made the decision, they had more coders inside who had far more experience with BSD.The reason was about the license, plain and simple.

      I could also tell you that I use to work at IBM and still have friends there who told me all that. But instead, I will point out that OSs are lose-leaders. When I worked at IBM, Uncle Lou took over. Just prior to that OS/2 was near to being OSS, but Lou stopped it. I think his rational was to have a weapon against MS. But that failed big and the OS was losing money, hand over fist. By the time that they realized that it would never succeed, Linux had more market share and backing than OS2. After stepping in the waters with Apache, they decided to persue an OS that they could use, but could not be used against them. Linux is just that. BSD is not.

      BTW, I have also worked at HP, and all OSs prior to being put into maintence modes are money-losing evils. Once they are put into maintence mode and you only have to put 3-6 ppl working on it, they make money fast and for a very long time. Ever wonder why HP use to like buying old equipment companies? "Analyst" (think dido) always claim that it is required to integrate with some piece of equipment. The real answer was much simplier. Great Profits.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:Honest question: Why Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shhh...we're not allowed to talk about a profit motive around here

  8. That's impressive, but .. by stinkyfingers · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can it run a JVM running on a Windows box and still be able to refresh the graphics?

    1. Re:That's impressive, but .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can it run a JVM running on a Windows box and still be able to refresh the graphics?

      A Sun VM on a Microsoft OS?
      Maybe. Until the next service pack.

  9. Doom 3 and 10240 Itanium2 processors by levram2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm guessing that NASA found out Doom 3 has a software renderer and are buying the minimum specs.

    1. Re:Doom 3 and 10240 Itanium2 processors by Zemrec · · Score: 1

      Actually, I bet with that much CPU horsepower, you could have a raytracing graphics engine instead of texturized polygons, and it would be real time still.

    2. Re:Doom 3 and 10240 Itanium2 processors by div_B · · Score: 1

      Actually, I bet with that much CPU horsepower, you could have a raytracing graphics engine instead of texturized polygons, and it would be real time still.

      Are you aware of this?

    3. Re:Doom 3 and 10240 Itanium2 processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, with that much CPU horsepower, you could do photon tracing graphics.

  10. I miss irix by chegosaurus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Please mod me down.

    1. Re:I miss irix by flok · · Score: 1

      If you would like a shell-account for openssource software development on an IRIX system, feel free to contact me: folkert@vanheusden.com

      --

      www.vanheusden.com - home of Multitail, HTTPing, CoffeeSaint, EntropyBroker, rsstail, bsod, listener, nagcon, nagi
    2. Re:I miss irix by LuSiDe · · Score: 1

      I port software on my own IRIX machine. But it is rather slow (R10K Dual 195 MHz). What kind of machine do you have?

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
  11. Surviving, but stock in a free-fall by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I commend SGI for finding a way to survive in a brutal post-workstation, post-proprietary-unix world - for a bit there it looked like they were going to be a candidate for an office furniture auction....but the stock is about to enter the penny range. It will be hard for SGI to attract serious capital if they go sideways in a range under $1, and they will once again court delisting.

    Good luck SGI, the Valley is rooting for its former star, and so are a lot of stock speculators.

    1. Re:Surviving, but stock in a free-fall by swb · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not a market whiz by any means, but how does a low stock price (assuming other, positive indicators) influence whether a company can survive or not? Once the stock is sold by the company, they don't make any further money on its continued sale.

      A stock whose price continues to climb can allow the company to essentially print money by issuing new stock (if the price climbs fast enough existing shareholders don't generally notice or care that you're diluting the pool), but beyond that, how does share price influence the company's actual operations?

      Going further OT, I think Apple should have bought SGI. They could have gained credibility in the scientific visualation and industrial sectors and had a tidy little OS and GUI that could have spanned from the receptionist desk to the research machine room, in addition to gaining some high-end server solutions far beyond their XServes.

      Somehow it seems that something like this could have develped into a really cool desktop solution that would allow users to run applications locally and remotely on big iron (yes, X-windows style) but with the ease of use and friendliness Apple's known for.

    2. Re:Surviving, but stock in a free-fall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is low/no demand for the stock (as evidenced by the low price), then it is difficult for them to issue new stock (via splits etc) to raise more cash. In the worst case if they are delisted, they lose the ability to generate cash using this technique at all, forcing them to go the more difficult route of securing funding from banks, other tech firms, etc.

    3. Re:Surviving, but stock in a free-fall by swb · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess I presume that most "stable" corporations (those out of their high growth phases) don't raise cash that often via increasing their outstanding shares, but instead go through the bond market or other lines of credit (banks or suppliers).

      You can only print stock if your stock value is fast rising, and that's not that many companies. Otherwise it has the same effect as printing money -- devaluing the existing shareholder's shares.

      Regardless, heavy trade in a corporation's stock actually does very little to raise capital for the company.

    4. Re:Surviving, but stock in a free-fall by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1
      I guess I presume that most "stable" corporations (those out of their high growth phases) don't raise cash that often via increasing their outstanding shares, but instead go through the bond market or other lines of credit (banks or suppliers).

      True, but the cost of that capital is influenced by their performance as measured by the common stock. It isn't a strict dependency, but corporate bonds will almost certainly have to pay higher rates if the company becomes a penny stock or is delisted. Its an indicator that creditors are taking on more risk.

      You can only print stock if your stock value is fast rising, and that's not that many companies. Otherwise it has the same effect as printing money -- devaluing the existing shareholder's shares.

      Thats true. Most shareholders seem to have no understanding of dilution.

      Regardless, heavy trade in a corporation's stock actually does very little to raise capital for the company.

      Not true, the company often holds a large number of its own shares through past buybacks or other measures, so a lower or higher price emerging from share volatility does impact its own accounts. Presuming a firm does not hold its own shares, you would be correct.

  12. Big plans at NASA by pixas · · Score: 3, Funny

    So NASA is planning to upgrade to Longhorn then?

    1. Re:Big plans at NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      640 CPUs should be enough...

    2. Re:Big plans at NASA by jak163 · · Score: 1

      And run Word 2005 on it.

  13. This should be enough power... by SunPin · · Score: 3, Funny

    to fake a human settlement on Mars.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
    1. Re:This should be enough power... by djeaux · · Score: 1
      to fake a human settlement on Mars.

      Or an election, for that matter.

      My grandpapppy believed that rasslin' was real but that NASA faked the moon shot.

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
    2. Re:This should be enough power... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      to fake a human settlement on Mars.
      And cheaper also.

  14. Homo Zapiens by xenostar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In a wonderful book "Homo Zapiens" by Victor Pelevin, the leaders of the world are rendered on clusters of SGI machines by a secret organization. Makes you wonder when you hear about these clusters :)

  15. Everquest2? by _14k4 · · Score: 1

    So... I hear these are the new minimum sys requirements for EQ2... we know where our NASA dollars go. VAK!

  16. Is their graphics really ATI? by dcavens · · Score: 1

    There are also strong hints that SGI plans to bring its clustered ATI graphics to Altix in the near future.

    I thought that SGI sold a lot of their graphics IP (including many of their top graphics engineers) to NVIDIA a while back, and still have agreements with them. Their IRIX systems sell with VPRO graphics cards, which I believe are repackaged NVIDIA chips with a few extras..

    Or did I miss something?

    d.

    1. Re:Is their graphics really ATI? by Bo+Diddly+Squat · · Score: 2, Informative

      The MIPS/IRIX systems have VPro graphics, yes. But those are not from NVIDIA. VPro for MIPS/IRIX is the last chipset to be developed inhouse.

      The confusion comes from the fact that Sgi marketing thought it would be a good idea to give both the PC and Irix graphics cards the same brand: VPro.

      They currently don't have anything newer for their workstations, but their newest Onyx (visualization system) computers use a couple of Ati cards for their graphics. It's called the UltimateVision.

    2. Re:Is their graphics really ATI? by lweinmunson · · Score: 4, Informative

      thought that SGI sold a lot of their graphics IP (including many of their top graphics engineers) to NVIDIA a while back, and still have agreements with them. Their IRIX systems sell with VPRO graphics cards, which I believe are repackaged NVIDIA chips with a few extras..

      Or did I miss something?


      Yes, The Vpro series only resembles Nvidia chipes because after it was completed, most of the team went to work for Nvidia and created the geforce with lots of the same ideas behind it. So the original GeForce chips were more like cut down Vpro's than the VPro's were soupped up GeForces if that makes any sense.

  17. Im going there by nukem996 · · Score: 1

    Im here in San Jose at the NYLF conference. The head of the NASA AIMS center talked about that yesterday. It was pretty impressive. All the stuff there doing is pretty impressive. Within the next week I am going there so I may be able to see it. Maybe even setup an SSH server hehehe.

    1. Re:Im going there by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 1

      Do you really mean NASA Ames-Dryden?

    2. Re:Im going there by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      Ya as part of this tech conference i get to go. You can find out more about it at NYLF.org

  18. Hints? Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SGI phoned me up today to ask if I would be interested in purchasing an Altix with ATI graphics, so I think we can upgrade it from rumour...

  19. Well, actually, ... by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    I was just contemplating the fact that this will be a cluster of clusters. I find that fact deeply satisfying, actually, as it models complex natural computation systems quite well.

    Our brains work very much like that (networks of networks of networks of ... you get the point)...

    So while you are making a joke, in this case, it is sorta... well... applicable!

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  20. How much did they pay for this thing? by DeathPenguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just curious. My guess is that Intel keeps pumping money into SGI to get Altix systems out and those who have them (LLNL and ...?) got them at practically no charge to run Linpack and look good on the Top500 list.

    1. Re:How much did they pay for this thing? by flaming-opus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt intel is pumping a lot of cash into sgi, but they may have cut them a real deal on the chips. When I first read about this computer I thought "what a coup for sgi." Then I read the dollar mark and thought "what a coup for nasa." $45million including storage and fibre channel? That's less than $2million per on those 512 proc altix boxes. They're not making much margin on those.

      To counter all of their detractors, Itanium2's are pretty hot processors, and SGI has done an amazing job getting linux to run well on 500 processors. This will no doubt be one hell of a fast machine. I'm just amazed that sgi can stay in business selling at this price.

      If anyone has been watching supercomputers lately, you might have noticed that cray is downsizing by 20% after selling 0 computers in their most recent quarter. It's a tough market for supercomputer makers. The clusters are good-enough-and-cheap. This box is being sold at very little more than cluster cost. Ick.

    2. Re:How much did they pay for this thing? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Ouch. I guess it is getting continually tougher to justify the single-system supercomputer approach. Someone mentioned that linpack doesn't emphasize interconnect performance enough. I think it is worth noting that the I2 processors are a lot cheaper now then they were a year ago, 1.4 GHz I2s with 3MB cache are selling for $1400 on pricewatch, that's a pretty good price for big-iron type CPUs. The PR doesn't say what speed and L3 size the CPUs use though.

  21. What's really depressing... by CdBee · · Score: 0

    ...is that by current progress, in 10 years you'll be able to get a consumer desktop with this much power.

    Still.. just imagine how much SETI@Home you could do on a beo.. err, on one of those!

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:What's really depressing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you could not find aliens a whole lot faster!

  22. Guess you haven't been keeping track of CPU's... by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 1

    Because as of late, it has been the Intel CPU's with the gigantic fans ;)

  23. Down 20% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good day to pick up some SGI stock on the cheap

  24. above link is kiddy porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too young

    1. Re: above link is kiddy porn by nbensa · · Score: 1

      Porn!?

      C'mon, she's dressed up! And she's 18+
      Where's the porn you see?

      She's gorgeus BTW... :-P

  25. After it's built.. by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Funny

    It whirs and clicks and sputters..

    Finally, the following cryptic message mysteriously appears on it's console:

    42

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  26. Link of photo of a young girl, not cluster! by wiggly-wiggly · · Score: 1

    Not a render of the cluster! (I don't even want to guess how old she is.)

  27. SGI was supposed to be dead by geomon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm glad to see that SGI has regained its legs and is back in the high-end computing market again. The gamble they made in embracing Linux has paid off. Other folks had counted them dead because they came to the WinNT game late and were, therefore, fated to be high-priced integrators. Their days were numbered by the low-end market forces like Dell and HP.

    Now we see that there is a market for high-priced integrators as long as the underlying technology fits the market segment you target.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:SGI was supposed to be dead by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I'm glad to see that SGI has regained its legs and is back in the high-end computing market again. The gamble they made in embracing Linux has paid off.

      What few people seem to know (and appreciate) is that SGI has been one of the major contributors to Linux over the last few years. Not only XFS, but lots of commands, utilities and system functions have been enhanced, based on IRIX code. This has been a significant boost to Linux, and it's only fair that SGI reaps some benefits.
      I wish SGI and its employees the best of luck!

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    2. Re:SGI was supposed to be dead by geomon · · Score: 1

      What few people seem to know (and appreciate) is that SGI has been one of the major contributors to Linux over the last few years...

      It wasn't overlooked by SCO. They were looking seriously at SGI as lawsuit meat. If there is anything left of SCO after Baystar Capital has finished suing them, maybe they will add SGI to their "Most Wanted List".

      Which should (hopefully) have the same impact as the Daimler-Chrysler suit.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:SGI was supposed to be dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe that the parent failed to credit SGI's work on Samba!

  28. This could mean the end of civilization... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doesn't NASA know that Linux is national security threat??? And 10240 cpu cluster no less? Don't they know that such concentrated evil will create a singularity? This could be the end of our civilization.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  29. Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think, we could find E.T. before he eats all the reeces pieces

  30. Why Linux? This is PERFECT for Longhorn by elinenbe · · Score: 1

    Finally someone can beta test the new longhorn minimal configuration. See benchmark test results up at www.nasa.gov/longhorn.html

    --
    -eric
  31. Psuedocode to be President by sexylicious · · Score: 1

    while(1)
    { get(info);
    if (info=true)

    goto(war_with_iraq(info));
    elseif (info=false)

    goto(war_with_iraq(info));
    else
    do_monkey_subroutine(bush_iq); }


    Wonder if this would work?

  32. AYIEEEE!! Not *another* HHGTTU reference by geomon · · Score: 1

    Please.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  33. MY THEORY by castlec · · Score: 1

    They are doing special research for part of our new mars initiative. here

    --
    When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
  34. 10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by cdc179 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have always liked SGI hardware. And congradulations are in order for them to have a single Linux kernel running across 512 CPUs.

    In SGIs press release they state that they hope to get the top spot on the 500 list. As all know IBM is expecting Blue Gene http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/ to take the top spot in 2005.

    It looks like SGIs architecture for the Altix is better than the Blue Gene, but 10,240 intel CPUs is just going to be outpowered by the 65,536 PowerPC CPUs in Blue Gene.

    Now the ultimate machine would have SGIs architecute (memory) and #CPUs per node using the PowerPC CPU. We know that IBM and SGI would never colaborate on something like this, but can't a geek dream!

    More blue gene specs: http://sc-2002.org/paperpdfs/pap.pap207.pdf

    1. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does their page say 8,000+? 65k is just what it's possible to scale to.

    2. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by a3217055 · · Score: 1

      8000 is what is in one rack

    3. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive the naive question, but can you elaborate on the architecture of the Altix versus the IBM systems (e.g., p690)? Thanks.

    4. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by cdc179 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I shouldn't have to expand on the previous stated. One should be able to extrapulate why what was said is so due to common sence and the links that have been posted. None the less, here it goes.

      BlueGene/L:
      From http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/BG_External_P resentation_January_2002.pdf pg 9:

      Each node will contain 8 CPUs. There are 128 Nodes per rack and 64 racks. This yields the 65536 total CPUs.

      10,240 Processor SGI Altix: 512 CPUs per node X 20 nodes = 10,240 total CPUs.

      Now that the groundwork has been layed. You can see that the Blue Gene/L only uses 8 CPUs/node while Altix uses 512/node. As you know there is a huge advantage of having more CPUs that share a common bus and have direct access to the memory. Also SGI is well known for having some of the top numbers for memory throughput.

      Therefore one can see that the ultimate HPC Monster would have SGIs architecture as far as bus, memory and #CPUs per node using IBMs PowerPC. Of course this would require a joint effore and wouldn't happen. The only way I could see something like this happen is if IBM bought SGI.

      I didn't go much into details about why the number of CPUs sharing a common bus is such an advantage. But one shouldn't have to. Anybody with any architecture knowledge should get the argument.

    5. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by a3217055 · · Score: 1

      ummm you should read the pdf each chip has 2 processors. There is a nice figure on Page 17 ( of the document not the file ) So you know BG/L has 128*1024 Processors. That is a lot, I don't think the Altix will keep up. PS There is too much overhead with the Itanium chips they have instruction sets for things that these guys will never use when they use the Altix.

    6. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "naive" was used purposefully. Though I could derive what you said I'm certain that there are relevant details that I don't understand, hence my question. For example a question that I've recently had to confront is where is parity across platform. For example, what does IBM have to do to match a 64-way Altix? Naive, yet, but not worthless or worthy of disdain.

    7. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Now the ultimate machine would have SGIs architecute (memory) and #CPUs per node using the PowerPC CPU

      If we're going for ultimate, I'd rather use the Power line of chips than the PowerPC. The PowerPC is a good chip, but the Power line is an entirely new level. : )

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    8. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by oxfletch · · Score: 1

      > Now the ultimate machine would have SGIs
      > architecute (memory) and #CPUs per node using
      > the PowerPC CPU. We know that IBM and SGI
      > would never colaborate on something like this,
      > but can't a geek dream!

      Ummm. Have you seen the Regatta-style stuff?
      It's faster than the SGI archticture. And with
      Power 5, even though the CPU count might be
      lower, the overall machine would probably be at
      least as fast.

    9. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously can't read the post correctly. The previous author was noting that as the current systems stand that SGIs would outdo BG/L. It was just noted that SGIs architecture was better and if you used that architecure with the number of CPUs used for BG/L you would have the ultimate HPC.

      You are comparing apples and oranges. The number of CPUs was only given as an example to show how many CPUs per node on both systems. So one could see that the system that uses more CPUs per node would be faster given the same amount of memory and same # total CPUs.

    10. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by mikefe · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you didn't show any effort put into researching the issues yourself, and that's why people are flaming you.

      It's like complaining someone gave you the finger when you stand in the middle of the intersection...

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    11. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was sincere question....starting from scratch trying to learn from those who may know better about the factors that influence performance. The original poster made a comment that was impetus for me to ask more (because I don't know). It's not difficult to understand that the more CPUs on a node accessing the same memory will yield performance advantages. Is it actually a bad thing to ask what else may be considered?

      The truth is benchmarking any system is not straight forward, hence the debates. This is the case with single CPU machines and I suspect far more difficult to assess with these types machines (especially when the CPU changes - e.g., Itanium vs Power4 (dual core)). Or I simply could be mistaken. Once again, I don't know the answers nor am I looking to have all that may be taught in a university course that discusses such architectures.

      A question was asked, not as a challenge, but rather to increase knowledge. If one is unwilling or perturbed by a question then don't respond. It really is as simple as that.

      No one was complaining rather it was an attempt to clarify why the question was asked. Slashdot is often a place to be distracted and sometimes a means to learn. No one is compelling anyone to respond to questions that are deemed less than worthy. I did not expect anything yet hoped to learn a bit more on a topic a topic I know very little about. Do you understand - now?

    12. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      re: intersection analogy

      Analogies do not work unless you know most of the details to draw the parallels. In this case it speaks greater to your ability reason/draw conclusions.

    13. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're going for ultimate, I'd rather use the Power line of chips than the PowerPC. The PowerPC is a good chip, but the Power line is an entirely new level. : )

      IBM made a point not to use POWER processors. Blue Gene's strength is that it uses processors that are slower (so the memory system can actually keep up). Power consumption does not scale linearly with CPU frequency. The power savings allows them to achieve cpu densities that are unheard of with POWER based clusters. ASCI Purple (the current flagship POWER based cluster) will have a little more that 12,000 POWER5 cpu cores. The final Blue Gene machine will have 131,072 cpu cores (based on one of PowerPC 4xx) and use about the same floor space. I do not think we will ever see a POWER5 based system with 20,000 cpu cores, let alone 131,000. ASCI Purple is expected to achieve 100 TFlops while Blue Gene is expected to achieve 360 TFlops. ASCI Purple will use 7.5 MW of power (computer + cooling). Blue Gene will use 1.2 MW of power (computer). Even if Blue Gene uses another 1.2 MW for cooling, it still will use half as much power.

      A little bit of good design goes a long way!

      Also, if Blue Gene was based on POWER5, it would have to use AIX in order to take advantage of Federation. Federation offers more bandwidth and lower latency (4 GB (bytes, not bits) and about 5 usec (even for messages bigger than a few bytes) than Infiniband. Nobody wants to see Linux beat by a proprietary product :(

    14. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if Blue Gene was based on POWER5, it would have to use AIX in order to take advantage of Federation. Federation offers more bandwidth and lower latency (4 GB (bytes, not bits) and about 5 usec (even for messages bigger than a few bytes) than Infiniband. Nobody wants to see Linux beat by a proprietary product :(

      I meant to say "4 GB/sec" not "4 GB".

    15. Re:10240-Processor Altix Cluster vs IBM Blue Gene? by NerveGas · · Score: 1


      Yes, but the idea was an "ultimate" setup, not a real-world, cost-constrained setup. :)

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  35. 55 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Approximately 55 million, according to the press release. Equivalently, a bit more than half of the 90 million dollars that Red Storm (10,000 Opterons) is costing. Looks like NASA got a good deal. SGI and Intel obviously made a good penny, too.

    At over 50 grand per processor, a PC or workstation cluster would have been a lot cheaper. Presumably the high speed interconnect and 2048 processor shared memory system images (with SGI promising all 10,240 in a single system image once they have some more improvements to Linux worked in) is worth 40+ millions of dollars to them.

    1. Re:55 million by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I think you missed a decimal place. At that price, it's actually about $5400 per processor. That's not much more than what some of these processors cost.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    2. Re:55 million by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Having a single system image is a -massive- bennefit to people who want to run simulations without having to actually learn the complexities of clustering. Considering that this will be used by a lot of scientists & engineers that are engaged in non-related research, I could see this cluster being used, most of the time, as simply 20 separate 512 processor systems.

      We've got a high-performance computing center here on campus and their largest cluster has 512 processors (in 256 nodes). It's an older setup, only running P3-730s. Each node of this NASA cluster is going to be like 5x faster than our entire cluster.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  36. Mmmmm.... more like 30+ by DumbSwede · · Score: 1
    This system should be 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than your fastest desk top. The real trend the last 40 years or so has been about a 10x increase every 10 years on the desktop. Sure my desktop is faster than a Cray from the 70s, but not faster than any top contender from the 90s.

    We have had a huge bump-up in GFLOPs for supercomputers this last decade. In 1993 the top system was about 60 Gigaflops vs about 40 Teraflops today (see top500.org) while a top of the line pentium 4 today is at about 5 Gigaflops. I don't think another 10 years will quite close the gap.

    The only real way to close in on massive parellel systems of today is for multicore chips to start appearing on the desktop (massively multicore).

    1. Re:Mmmmm.... more like 30+ by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      I agree. Massively multi-core may not happen for a while yet. There would have to be some breakthrus in photolithography and electrical engineering that allows the production of much smaller gates, so each CPU takes up much less space (say 10X less) allowing massive numbers of CPUs on a reasonable size die. IIRC, Sun now has placed 4 Sparc CPUs on a single chip. And you can get two Xeons on 1 chip now.

  37. Example: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple taketh plenty from open source but giveth back little.

  38. Worst. Joke. Ever. by paintballluvr · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I'd like to see a beowulf cluster of those.

    Worst. Joke. Ever.
    I stand by my decleration.

  39. [clears throat]... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matrox.

  40. All this hardware just to keep from getting /.'ed by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like they're having to put this cluster together to keep us from bringing down their website/servers/network whenever one of us posts a news item to /. about the photo a space probe took of a methane cloud on Venus, supposedly caused by a single gassy Venutian 35 million years ago -- before they moved to a better neighborhood.

    IronChefMorimoto

  41. I think I speak for all of us when I say... by rewt66 · · Score: 1

    I want one!

    1. Re:I think I speak for all of us when I say... by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      Could you afford the electricity bill?

  42. Someone at NASA... by TWooster · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... was reading too much Slashdot.

    I knew nothing good could come of all those beowulf cluster ideas!

    1. Re:Someone at NASA... by drewness · · Score: 1

      You do realize that NASA came up with the Beowulf cluster, right? Primarily the work of Donald Becker; the same guy that wrote a lot of the Linux network card drivers.

  43. Imagne a..... by EmagGeek · · Score: 0, Redundant

    oh wait... nevermind...

    I wonder how fast this sucker can run a spell check on the word "derived."

  44. This joke is just plain dumb! by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

    Doom 3 is not "that" hardware intensive. The latest beta plays just fine on a Radeon 9800 Pro that has been out for quite some time. These jokes are getting so old!

    1. Re:This joke is just plain dumb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The system runs Linux and as far as I know, Doom3 is only comming out for xBox&Windows currently. So the game wouldn't run on the system. Plus I doubt it has support for more than 2 processors..

    2. Re:This joke is just plain dumb! by ToterSan · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you but John Carmack himself said only 3-6 months for a linux version. And according to my calculations, it should have a framerate of at least 100,000 fps Or... you could use a cool 9-monitor setup & get 10,000 fps!!! 9 ea 1600 x 1200 monitors = great for sniping.... MWAHAHAHA!!!!!

  45. damns..makes no sense by Nexcet · · Score: 1

    why would you need all that for...i mean we can only move things fast as speed of light..damns all this, tss tss. They just like playing with big toys like always.

  46. For what? by kabrakan · · Score: 1

    What exactly does NASA do with this power? I'm aware its for number crunching, but in what sense and for what exact purpose do they spend millions of taxpayer dollars? I've heard of supercomputers predicting economic trends, etc, but what are the space exploration applications?

    BTW, i'm not a troll, i'm just curious.

    --
    Slartibartfast:"Is that your robot?"
    Marvin:"No, I'm mine."
    1. Re:For what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They develop technology needs for space exploration, which is often far beyond any technology that currently exists. They constantly have to innovate and create new technologies to pull off these space missions. But I imagine sometimes they aren't even sure what technologies they need exactly, so they do a ton of research and development. Haven't you ever heard the term "space-age technology"? It was coined about 50 years ago when the government starting pumping a lot of funds into NASA. All kinds of new technologies were invented during that time, many used in later space missions, but some didn't end up being useful. That's how the process goes.

    2. Re:For what? by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      NASA is a busy place. Let's see how many possible uses NASA may have for large scale computers I can think of off the top of my head.

      Simulating high speed aerodynamics; things like mach 10 air breathing jets are a lot cheaper to simulate. Recent results seem to indicate that this method works, too.

      Multibody orbital mechanics; As I understand it, any gravitational system greater than a certain number of bodies requires simulation to predict. Essentially the system must be calculated empirically because it defies any equation. I'm no physicist so I doubt that this is a proper description of the issue.

      Signal analysis; NASA does queer things with signals because you can discover surprising things by analyzing large quantities of signal data. Only the NSA rivals NASA here. Measuring the speed of an object at astronomical distances or the thickness and composition of the rings of Saturn are examples of what signal analysis can do.

      General Astronomy; Searching through sky surveys to identify objects that fit patterns is a common task. This sort of analysis routinely reveals things such as near earth orbit objects or extra solar planets. A big challenge contemporary astronomers face is processing very (!) large data sets; often they can collect orders of magnitude more data than they can study. I have no doubt there are large data sets that have yet to be studied fully for lack of computational capacity.

      I'm public school educated white trash hick from the rust belt and speculating about the possible uses for large scale computation at NASA pose zero challenge for me. What's wrong with you?

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  47. Ever wonder why WINDOWS is never used? by stealth.c · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's an operating system like any other right? And no, it isn't for the canned reasons like instability, insecurity or other "Windows is teh sux0r" gibberings.

    Fact is, these research and hardware people don't have to negotiate a license with anybody, don't have to wait for the proper "10240 Processor Edition Platinum Plus Edition XP" of the OS to be finished by the developer, because Linux, in its free nature, allows them to add all the necessary capabilities (and remove unnecessary ones) themselves. Because of the philosophy Free Software, science is not held for ransom by some developer's arbitrary software price.

    I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think those of us interested in telling other people about OSS advantages ought to point to things like this. If you have a project in mind which requires software to fulfill, your work does not have to be at the mercy of some EULA. This empowers individuals and organizations, liberating both from needing to be tethered to some vendor's idea of what they should do with their machines.

    1. Re:Ever wonder why WINDOWS is never used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, that and the fact that WINDOWS has a) never scaled very well (These are massively paralled machines) and b) never clustered very well.

      Windows has simply never really been a player in these domains, no surprises here.

    2. Re:Ever wonder why WINDOWS is never used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good points, but most of these huge supercomputers don't run Linux, they run IRIX or AIX or Solaris or UNICOS, etc. which do have licensing issues, but already scale that big, unlike windows. Yeah, they don't have to wait for a special edition to run on their machine since they already will, but like I said there are still license issues.

  48. For some, too bad they run Linux... by sparcnut · · Score: 1

    ... because so far this is the only thing I've heard of that could run Longhorn.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
  49. is tihs flamebait? by stealth.c · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I thought Linux clusters brought us Google and Pixar.

    And good luck licensing a 10240-processor copy of Windows.

  50. Columbia by nboscia · · Score: 1

    The idea is not to run a single application on the 10k, it is to offer pieces of it to researchers based on their computing needs. We have current customers that use 1024-processor and 512-processor systems. With a [hopefully new] customer database, they can request any number of systems they need to do their computations on. This is also not just a NASA toy, it's available for all US researchers, as the press release states.

    As far as Linux goes, it is definately nice to see that in place of IRIX. For those posters complaining about security, there will be special measures in place and staff devoted exclusively to the security of this system.

  51. just read the links by halfelven · · Score: 1

    It's all explained in the web pages that this announcement links to.

  52. ...well.... by mhore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know what NASA would do with this, but I know what our group would do with it.

    We always need machines. You could give me 1024 machines and I'd still need more.

    For example, I study fluids currently. I may simulate 4,000,000 particles and it may take 3 weeks for my simulation to finish. If I had 10240 nodes, it may only take a day. Or perhaps I could simulate MORE particles for longer. There are all sorts of advantages to having this many machines hooked up.

    One thing I can tell you for sure is that there most likely will not be *1* job that uses all of these at once. There are probably several researchers that are using it simultaneously and have a slice of the machines. Press releases like this are often time misleading because usually the CPUs are split between several jobs and researchers and research groups and what not.

    Not to steal NASA's thunder -- a cluster this big is impressive.

    Mike.

    --

    Mmmm......sacrelicious.

    1. Re:...well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you that amongst other things, NASA also does fluid dynamics simulations on supercomputers. Not that it's likely a surprise, especially when you're simulating e.g. launch vehicles. There's always a use for more CPUs where this system will be going.

    2. Re:...well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what NAMBLA would do with this, but I know what our group would do with it.

      We always need fluffers. You could give me 1024 fluffers and I'd still need more.

      For example, I study fluids currently. I may stimulate 4,000,000 penises and it may take 3 weeks for my stimulation to finish. If I had 10240 hands, it may only take a day. Or perhaps I could stimulate MORE penises for longer. There are all sorts of advantages to having this many fluffers coked up.

      One thing I can tell you for sure is that there most likely will not be *1* job that uses all of these at once.

  53. Re: Great News for Intel by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Informative

    With this cluster, Intel will have doubled
    the number of Itanium 2 sales for the YEAR!

  54. Future Jim Carey victim by heroine · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    When Jim Carey gets elected, don't be surprised if these monster computer projects get cancelled. For all the simultaneous worshipping of big iron and hatred of republicans, computer scientists still haven't figured out that big iron is defense spending and defense spending is big iron. The two are inseparable.

    1. Re:Future Jim Carey victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inseparable? Big Iron's heyday might have been in defense, but that was the 80's, when Big Iron was needed to do what commodity hardware can do today - aggregate all the defense data.

      Today's needs for Big Iron have more to do with scientific research into fluid dynamics, genome sorting, pharmaceutical research and running the backend to MMORG's.

      Big Iron is one peace dividend whose contributions to society can extend far beyond designing crazier ways to make our species extinct. We don't need - nay - we can't support any more fucking nuclear weapons, especially when our so-called president is so fucking stupid that he can't even pronounce the word!

    2. Re:Future Jim Carey victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otter: 'Jim Carey' ?

      Boon: Forget it, he's rolling...

  55. Why not Windows? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I've seen tons of stories about using Linux machines to create insanely large clusters and creating supercomputers and all that. I don't pretend to understand how any of that works but it fascinates the hell out of me.

    What is it about Linux that makes it more possible than MS Windows?

    It's a general tech question I'm hoping someone can answer without getting all religious about it.

    1. Re:Why not Windows? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Linux has, for quite some time, had a lot of effort put into support for machines other than x86 - which implies 64-bitness, more processers, NUMA, and all of those goodies.

      Windows, on the other hand, has (with a few exceptions, now gone) been tied to the x86 architecture - meaning there's never even been a need to support more than a relatively small number of processers, and not even the possibility (until recently) of 64-bitness. (Yes, there was NT for the Alpha. It's gone.)

      With Linux, there are people saying "I'd like this to not only run on a 32-CPU NUMA system, I'd like it to run well. With Windows, you have people saying "Ah, we'll never have to worry about more than four or maybe eight processers."

      In particular to this machine, one of the large benefits of Linux is that it has pretty good support for NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Architecture). IBM, who has a lot of experience in the area, has put a very large amount of development into it. That's paid off extremely well not only in supporting IBM's Power line, but also Opterons and other NUMAs.

      With Windows, until the Opterons, NUMA was one of those things that Billy G. never even imagined supporting, because it just wasn't part of the x86 world.

      As another example, the o(1) scheduler that was introduced along the 2.4 development vastly improved multi-processer scalability. Windows just doesn't have such cool things, and it certainly doesn't have the ability to switch to a new scheduler whenever they want!

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    2. Re:Why not Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows was never designed to scale that well, and just can't. Linux can scale pretty well and is getting better, but most of these huge machines run IRIX or Solaris or AIX or whatever, as they have scaled for years.

    3. Re:Why not Windows? by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Windows NT is internally 64-bit. The Windows APIs on x86 are downported to 32-bit.

      (The internal interfaces are all 64-bit, but that is not the same as the Windows APIs that are 32-bit.)

  56. Maybe Artificial Development Can Use this Thing by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

    Artificial Development is developing a simulation of the human cortex. They could use this thing. They need all the processing power they can get their hands on.

  57. I can't believe it went this far without this.... by jwcorder · · Score: 1

    "My other PC is a 10240-Processor Altix Cluster" Gonna patent that bumpersticker right now...

    --
    http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
  58. Okay... by lewp · · Score: 1

    *starts checking Fatwallet for hot deals on new supercomputer*

    --
    Game... blouses.
  59. This server should have enough power... by Mr.+Moose · · Score: 1

    ...to withstand a good slashdot'ing. Now, what should they put on the webpages? Images from Mars? A "behind the secenes - How we faked the Mars landing"?

  60. Here is a link that gives some more technical info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jason Pettit , SGI Altix 3000 Product Manager, Interviewed:

    http://www.linuxhpc.org/stories.php?story=04/02/22 /0284237

  61. Re:I can't believe it went this far without this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that would be copyright. not patent.

  62. Just gearing up by HermanZA · · Score: 1

    for the next version of Longhorn and MS Office 2008, that's all...

  63. That'll be by CPlusPlusOwnsYou · · Score: 1

    ... $7,157,760 you owe me for those 10,240 processors.

    Sincerly,
    Darl McBride

    --
    "Software is like sex: it's better when it's free."
  64. We already have one by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    There should be an IQ test before one is allowed to post to /.
    There already is. If you're bright enough, you don't post. Ooops. (-:
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  65. HyperTransport should also help... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    ...to hook those babies together in multiprocessor clumps that can exchange data amongst themselves really, really quickly.

    If Opterons don't win on raw FP performance (which in itself is debatable), they'd absolutely hammer (ha!) the Intel chips once IO and the cost of support chips was factored in.

    I'm betting Intel chips were chosen for (supplier-)political reasons.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:HyperTransport should also help... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      they'd absolutely hammer (ha!) the Intel chips

      Gee, maybe that's why AMD chose "hammer" as the code name for that-which-would-be-Opteron...

      I'm betting Intel chips were chosen for (supplier-)political reasons.

      Or...... SGI started designing the Altix well before they could get any K8 engineering samples from AMD.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  66. Pardon the industrial... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...three-phase plug you'll need to install before powering the damn thing up, and that - what with the cooling fans and all - not even a Canadian owning one of these would ever see snow in his yard.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  67. All I want to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how many FPS it gets running Doom 3 on ultrahigh detail.

  68. I never thought I'd say this... by syukton · · Score: 1

    I think we just slashdotted Silicon Graphics.

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  69. guys you know what this means? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Remember when the SGI 512 processor story came out and all those "imagine a beowulf cluster of these" jokes were modded down?

    Now we have to go back and mod them insightful