Slashdot Mirror


NASA To Get 10,240 Node Itanium 2 Linux Cluster

starwindsurfer writes "US space agency Nasa is to get a massive supercomputing boost to help get its shuttle missions back in action after the 2003 shuttle disaster. Project Columbia, a collaboration with two technology giants, will mean Nasa's computing power will be ramped up by 10 times to do complex simulations."

249 comments

  1. Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but someone ought to tell them that Doom 3 runs pretty well just on moderately-new hardware...

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by AIX-Hood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Going on the mention of the previous shuttle disaster, I think they're trying to avoid doom.

    2. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      well.. they would need to get the shuttle flying..

      and get that mars plan underway as well. no way in hell i'm signing up for UAC's mars base though no matter how exciting archeological findings...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Keruo · · Score: 5, Funny

      nah, they're just preparing for longhorn

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    4. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Wybaar · · Score: 1

      They're planning ahead for what the system requirements will be for Duke Nukem Forever running on Longhorn when they both come out.

      --
      Y|
    5. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you join the marines and are forced to go don't forget your duct tape and some upside-down-head-spider repellant.

    6. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gogo HEMOS! Poster of dupes and overall too many WORTHLESS stories.... HEMOS WINS WORST SLASHDOT STAFFER AWARD! - maybe a beowulf cluster of worst staffer awards!

    7. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but does this beowulf cluster of worst staffer awards run linux in Japan? He must have stolen those awards from that faggot Michael.

    8. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is pretty impressive. bout enough said.

    9. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      I hope they don't have to run any 32-bit apps on this thing. If they do, it might achieve the computing power of a 233mhz Pentium 2. Why the hell are they building it out of Itanics? G5s or AMD 64s would produce a lot less heat and eat a lot less power and would probably trounce the Itanics anyway.

    10. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately NASA are out of luck the 'flying shuttle' was already patented in 1733, replacing the 'Spinning Jenny'.

    11. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think, 10,240 SCO licenses!!!

    12. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're talking about a company that can't even build pressurized passages between the different buildings. Damn the frightenly small amount of oxygen that the combat suit can hold!

    13. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Naffer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because for what they're designed to do, the Itanium 2 is a damn fast processor that no opteron could keep up with. Its only at 32 bit processing that the Itaniums suck.

    14. Re:Geez, that's pretty impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a computer 2 years ago and I bought doom 3 last wednesday. It runs amazingly well.

      Of course I bought I p4 2.4ghz, 1gb ram and a couple months ago bought a discount GeforceFX 5600 for $150 CDN.

      Enough with the doom3 jokes already! =)

  2. Dupe? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this isn't a duplicate, this is a triplicate!

    2. Re:Dupe? by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but I think it's fourth time. lemme check...

      1 2 3

      three.. oh well :)

      some stats:
      1 - hemos, global:science, 180 coments
      2 - michael, local:science, 8 comments
      3(oldest) - timothy, global:linux, 188 comments

      --
      #
      #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
      #
  3. speaking of clusters... by Savves · · Score: 0, Redundant

    are we gonna get another barrage of /. beowulf cluster jokes?

    1. Re:speaking of clusters... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Too late. See the post above you.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:speaking of clusters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine 10,240 individual Itanium servers all running at once!?!?!?

      Intel couldn't either that's why they're probably salivating over this one initiative alone.

      Itanium sales have been slowwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

  4. As the server? by lacrymology.com · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, I guess they're not using it to serve that webpage.

    -m

    --

    #
    # Modus Ponens
    #
    1. Re:As the server? by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Nah, they'll be using it to assist in the launch - the heat generated by all those processors should provide a substantial updraft around the launching pad...

  5. Nice...but a dupe. by Agent+Green · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
    // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    1. Re:Nice...but a dupe. by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      No, but they've applied several times.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
  6. Are we gonna get another, by b00m3rang · · Score: 2, Funny

    "are we gonna get another barrage of (insert slashdot cliche') posts" again?

    Damnit!

  7. What Would SCO's Take Be Worth? by geomon · · Score: 4, Funny

    About $7.2 Million.

    Talk about a software tax!

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:What Would SCO's Take Be Worth? by geomon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Moderators must be having a bad day. I've seen several other attempts at humor moderated 'offtopic'.

      I wonder if this is a Monday phenomenon? I wonder what the distribution of 'Funny' moderation is through the week.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    2. Re:What Would SCO's Take Be Worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder if this is a Monday phenomenon? I wonder what the distribution of 'Funny' moderation is through the week.

      Sounds like the moderators are having a case of the Mondays?

    3. Re:What Would SCO's Take Be Worth? by geomon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sounds like the moderators are having a case of the Mondays?

      If you accept the notion that people are more prone to have a negative mood on a Monday than, say, a Friday when looking forward to a weekend, then yes they are having a case of Mondays.

      It would be interesting to look at moderations over the course of a week to see if moderators are more generous in their assement of a posts "worth" at weeks end rather than on Monday morning.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    4. Re:What Would SCO's Take Be Worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, witless "$699!" comments are just completely unfunny. Go make Beowulf or dupe jokes instead.

    5. Re:What Would SCO's Take Be Worth? by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, your humor didn't escape everyone. I got the "Office Space" reference.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    6. Re:What Would SCO's Take Be Worth? by geomon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually I was referring to other topic areas other than this one. I wasn't even referring to my own attempt at humor. I was making a rather broad commentary about moderations in general and how those marked 'funny' are running rather low today...

      ....you humorless fuck.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  8. Should help in units conversion ... by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This should help 'em convert feet to meters ... ;-)

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Should help in units conversion ... by noselasd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, the actual error was some engineers assuming specs
      from other engineers were in pounds while they really were in newtons
      (1 pound == 4.45 newton)

    2. Re:Should help in units conversion ... by xmas2003 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yea, it was actually a "force" measurement (you did say Newtons and (I assume meant) pounds-force) - see attached snippet from one writeup ... plus the incorrect deviations from the flight path weren't noticed, which is argueably a distance measurement (there was a fair amount of miscommunication going on too, so lotta blame/mistakes on this one unfortunately) ... but I simplified to feet/meters in my attempt at humor. NASA has (obviously) done a GREAT job with the current Mars Landers, but boo-boo's happen.

      Engineers on the ground calculated the size of the rocket-firing using feet-per-second of thrust, a value based on the English measure of feet and inches.

      However, the spacecraft computer interpreted the instructions in Newtons-per-second, a metric measure of thrust. The difference is 1.3 metres a second.

      --
      Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    3. Re:Should help in units conversion ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pound is a unit of mass.
      Newton is a unit of force.

      This is probably the biggest problem with imperial units.

      It's simply a bad idea to use the same names for 2 different incomparable quantities (lbf/lb).

    4. Re:Should help in units conversion ... by MrNonchalant · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Who needs a computing cluster of your own for that when you can steal the power of someone else's?

    5. Re:Should help in units conversion ... by the+chao+goes+mu · · Score: 1

      Pound is a unit of weight, which is force. Slugs are units of mass. Well, ok... pound are often misused as mass, but they aren't. I can't say "he weights x pounds at this altitude", if it is MASS. Mass is constant (2d law of Thermodynamics). Pounds are units of mass time gravitational attraction, which is a unit of force.

      --
      Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
    6. Re:Should help in units conversion ... by heffrey · · Score: 1

      Ah, all is clear then.

      My top tip for units: use SI and sidestep these issues. ;-)

  9. AGG! by c0dedude · · Score: 0

    If I hear one move comment about a certain medievil hero (hint: beo...) in a certain cliche, I may go insane.

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    1. Re:AGG! by foidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

      So Hrathgar carries Hrunting into a bar. The bartender asks him "Why the long face", and Hrathgar cuts his head off with Hrunting singing, "A hrunting we will go, a hrunting we will go!"
      *Rimshot

    2. Re:AGG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If I hear one move comment about a certain medievil hero (hint: beo...)

      That's "neo", not "beo". Sorry for the spelling flame, but you deserved it.

    3. Re:AGG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dolt! He was talking about Beowolf Cluster. oops there's that saying.

  10. Good news for Intel by thebra · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Hahaha, my comment is a dupe!

    1. Re:Good news for Intel by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      I am frankly surprised there are that many in existance.

      Think of the problems in the futures for the hardware admins (swap-ologists) finding spares when a CPU cooks.

      Would it have been a better idea to have based something like this on a go-forward architecture?

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. NASA vs RIAA/MPAA by grunt107 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The system will have 500 terabytes of storage, the equivalent of 800,000 CDs.

    In related news, the RIAA has filed a writ of discovery for illegal downloads of 'Major Tom' at NASA.

  13. I hope technology will help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But I wonder if moving from a spreadsheet to a supercomputer simulation will make it any more likely that engineers with concerns will whistleblow to non-responsive management. This is a government bureaucracy problem, not a technical problem.

    1. Re:I hope technology will help by RoosterRuley · · Score: 1

      I remember that the culture of NASA at the time made anyone who questioned what has happened afraid to speak up. Will a fast computer really change that?

    2. Re:I hope technology will help by GGardner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Instead of saying "In my best engineering and technical judgement, based on years of training and experience, I think this is a bad idea", the engineers can say "Our really expensive computer thinks this is a bad idea".

    3. Re:I hope technology will help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the engineers can say "who cares? I'm not the one riding the shuttle, I'm sitting here eating donuts".

    4. Re:I hope technology will help by cide1 · · Score: 1

      It is sad, but in big corporations, this is often a notable differance. An engineer's signature doesnt count for much anymore.

      --
      -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
    5. Re:I hope technology will help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The two biggest failures at NASA, Challenger and Columbia, absolutely would not have been fixed with more computing power.

      In the case of Challenger, engineers whose opinions should have had the most weight were ignored when they expressed concerns about the seals on the solid fuel rocket boosters. The decision was made by bureaucrats who didn't have the technical savvy required to even form an opinion.

      In the case of Columbia, many engineers at NASA were concerned about possible damage to tiles and requested some (any!) possible surveillance to get a look at the possibly affected areas of the shuttle. They were overruled and there wasn't even any attempt to get a look though such a look might have been at least possible if inconclusive.

      Take some of the brightest minds on the planet, put idiots in charge and this is exactly what you get. This is a government bureaucracy problem, not a technical problem, and all the supercomputers in the world will not help!

    6. Re:I hope technology will help by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you hit the head on the nail.. Along with the supercomputer they need to put in place a oversight committee of engineers that can take anonomous comments from other engineers and completely override and bypass Nasa administration.

      99% of the time major failures lies in the hands of management, or the failure of management. Yes going to space is hard and dangerous, but they KNEW that something went wrong on launch and management chose to ignore it.

      dont believe me? show me one corperation failure that was NOT the fault of managment.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:I hope technology will help by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Simple, program the computer with an AI simulation of a GOOD NASA manager (yea, I know thats an oxymoron). Ask the computer what to do, let it crunch all the data and say GO/NOGO. They should have plenty of power to run that sort of AI program.

      Then if it fails, blame the software!! :)

    8. Re:I hope technology will help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps better...

      Program it with an AI simulation of a NASA manager, ask the computer what to do and then do exactly the opposite!

  14. Tax payer. by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm rather mad at this idea, the system costs more than an opteron system, costs more to run (heat/power) and is slower. But it at least runs linux.

    Also, why is the BBC the first news tidbit about NASA's new supercomputer?

    1. Re:Tax payer. by geomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, why is the BBC the first news tidbit about NASA's new supercomputer?

      Science isn't sexy news in America.

      Not unless they declare they've created a satellite system that will track and kill bin Laden.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    2. Re:Tax payer. by legoleg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just wait till the last week of October... I'm sure he'll conviently pop up around then.

    3. Re:Tax payer. by geomon · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking the same thing. Amazing how much activity we've had over the last two weeks on the War on Terror compared to the last five months.

      bin Laden is probably in a hole somewhere in Leavenworth Penitentiary right now ready for his arrest just before Halloween.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    4. Re:Tax payer. by RageEX · · Score: 1

      Know of any 512P Opteron systems? Slower? Last I knew Altix had the best STREAM score by a large margin. The processors aren't the big deal it's the NUMAflex architecture, massive memory bandwidth and scaleabily, and the huge nodes.

    5. Re:Tax payer. by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 2, Informative

      Science isn't sexy news in America.

      To be fair, science isn't exactly sexy news in the UK, either. The BBC covers stuff like this because (a) it's mandated to, and (b) there's no profit motive keeping the unsexy news off the (metaphorical) frontpages. Which is nice[1].

      [1] ...provided there remain alternative broadcasters to keep the Beeb on its toes.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    6. Re:Tax payer. by geomon · · Score: 1

      Interesting that it is 'mandated' to provide science coverage. Here in the States you have to listen to public radio to get any science news.

      Or I should qualify that by saying that you get science news that isn't related to weight loss, plastic surgery, or abortion. Those topics get frontpage coverage on the commercial outlets.

      If it bleeds, it leads.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    7. Re:Tax payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there isnt a politician on EARTH that wouldnt take advantage of that.

    8. Re:Tax payer. by halfelven · · Score: 1

      The reason SGI uses Itanium is that it performs better in a supercomputer environment than Opteron. I'm not sure which CPU might be faster in a "normal" computer (1...4 CPUs), it may or may not be Opteron, but in a single-OS-image supercomputer Intel performs better.

      Yeah, in my home computer i also got an AMD, i think there's more bang for the buck with AMD in that area.

    9. Re:Tax payer. by Apreche · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure a lot of people are going to dress up as him on Halloween. it was popular last year, probably moreso this year.

      --
      The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    10. Re:Tax payer. by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      Science isn't sexy news in America.

      When Paris Hilton has nightvision camera sex with the Hubble Space Telescope, you'll be singing a different tune.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    11. Re:Tax payer. by painehope · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind it's not a COTS ( Commodity Off The Shelf ) system like a lot of clusters, it's not even a typical cluster like the kind I have at work ( oodles of dual CPU nodes connected via Ethernet ). SGI Altix machines scale up to 256 CPUs and 4 TB of memory in a single system image, which is one very large SMP machine ( actually, CC-NUMA ). I'm not sure how many CPUs per node ( OS image ) this machine will have, as the article didn't coherently state it, but bear in mind that a cluster of these is more like a cluster of IBM p690s than anything else. Massive memory available per node, very high speed interconnect, etc.

      As far as I know, the only company doing anything similar w/ Opterons is Cray's XD1 systems, and they're along the same line as an SGI Altix.

      So it's not actually a waste of taxpayer money. As much as I love linux clusters composed 1-4 CPU nodes connected w/ a commodity interconnect ( as you can almost consider, GigE, Myrinet, Quadrics, SCI, etc. - when compared with the proprietary interconnects used in SGIs, IBM SP switches, etc. ), there's some things that you can do with greater efficiency by having 128 processors and 2 TB of memory in a single system image.

      --
      PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    12. Re:Tax payer. by flabbergast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you can't buy an opteron system with NUMA link (3.2 GB/s between bricks) and you can't simply build a 500 TB data cluster by purchasing some CAT5, 100 250GB drives, 10 Gigabit ethernet cards and call it a day. SGI thrives because it can put together a clustered supercomputer and has the technology to build a 500TB data center. 20 Altix racks, 128 Altix bricks/rack (4 processors/brick X 128 = 512 proc) and has globally shared memory thanks to numalink. This means that even though each brick can run independently, you can also build a 512 proc system with a single Linux system image that has the combined memory of all the bricks (thanks SHUB and NUMAlink!). So, when you can build a 512 processor, global shared memory system out of Opterons, then you go ahead and sell it. This is a clustered supercomputer where each cluster is a supercomputer.

    13. Re:Tax payer. by slash-tard · · Score: 1

      1) This is a 20 computer cluster. Each computer has 512 CPUs. Opterons currently support up to 8 per system.

      2) Some tasks work better within a single system which is probably why they didnt go with dual or quad systems.

      3) Itaniums can be very fast if the sofwtare is compiled for them.

      4) Profit!!!

    14. Re:Tax payer. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      The Itanium has features that allow large numbers of them to work together in a cluster better than the Opteron does. Don't forget these are SSI systems that are being joined to form this cluster and as far as I know their are no AMD SSI system that have 512 processors in them.

      Not everything can be broken into little pieces to run on a Beowulf cluster.

    15. Re:Tax payer. by shiftless · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, cause not only would it would make more sense to wait until 95% of America has it beat into their heads that Bush sucks before bringing Bin Laden out rather than bringing him out as soon as he's captured and using it to Bush's political advantage, but also there's no chance that the soldiers who supposedly captured him already would EVER talk or tell anyone about it.

      Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah:

    16. Re:Tax payer. by ameoba · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. The machines in the cluster, SGI Altixes, do things that -can't- be done with any available Opteron systems; each node is a 512 processor machine. This means you can spawn of 512 threads and give each one its own CPU without having to move off the system. ...and the Itanium2 wipes the floor with pretty much anything else on the market when it comes to floating point calculations.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    17. Re:Tax payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike a commodity Beowulf cluster, these systems are based on shared memory.

      It's a very different model than message passing, and works better in some problem domains.

    18. Re:Tax payer. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about NPR's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday, they tend to stick to politically charged discussions like stem cell research, cloning, genetically-modified crops, the Endangered Species act, global warming, bio-fuels. You know, stuff that stirs people up.

      Of course, that's what Talk of the Nation does...I stopped listening to radio for a while back in 2000 because TotN was what was on when I got out of school. I preferred to go home and get on Slashdot. It calmed down after the 2000 presidential elections, though.

    19. Re:Tax payer. by geomon · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about NPR's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday, they tend to stick to politically charged discussions like stem cell research, cloning, genetically-modified crops, the Endangered Species act, global warming, bio-fuels. You know, stuff that stirs people up.

      Yeah, I agree they tend to follow the trendy research stories. I would also point out that despite their coverage of 'polically charged topics', they do commit more time to a particular subject than any other broadcast organization and they take listener comments, some of which take exception to the position of the guests on the show.

      Also, I have heard several discussions about basic research in fields including cosmology, paleontology, and entomology. None of that stuff will ever be covered by MSNBC or Fox, much less the Big Three networks.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    20. Re:Tax payer. by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      The irony is, is that you say American's don't think science is sexy on an American site loaded with geeks (very many of which are American) who do.

      And for that matter, how do you know who covered this first? You haven't backed that up with anything other than seeing a link to it from Slashdot first. (That's kinda weak as the standards here are...well...lax.) The earliest coverage I found (at a glance) is this Scroll down and look for it. It's dated July 27, 2004. It's not the only mention of it in the American media anyways. Check out that other American science hating website called Google News and give it a search. (They are nice there...they even include foriegn news sources dontchaknow.) Sorry Beeb....knew about it for weeks before ya.. Thanks for playing.

      Taking a jab at America is fine...you have the right. But consider being correct first.

      This is the stuff that gets modded highly insightful...I'm laughing on the inside.

    21. Re:Tax payer. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Very true. All of it.

    22. Re:Tax payer. by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      You're right.

      500TB per se doesn't mean much - I wonder what kind of thruput per node they can get.

      Donno if anyone has noticed - the genius who wrote the /. article said 10K nodes instead of 10K CPUs.
      We really need the ability to moderate article authors...

    23. Re:Tax payer. by flabbergast · · Score: 1

      As always, the answer is "it depends."

      SGI Triples Backup and Restore Record, Scalable Technology Protects Large Data Environments

      This is for tape storage backup, and 10.1TB backup to tape isn't too bad. I know for connecting to data storage SGI uses 2Gb fibre channel. But, other than that, I'm kinda clueless about data storage centers, in general.

    24. Re:Tax payer. by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      SGI thrives because it can put together a clustered supercomputer

      SGI is not thriving. Check the stock price.

    25. Re:Tax payer. by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      Nope, Make more semse to wait until after the election. Why? Then the reps can crow about how the success wasn't jepordized by a change of leader (if they win) and cast all that didn't vote for Bush as being somehow... unpatriotic.
      If the dems win then the reps can sow FUD about how key dem leaders were withholding important info until their candidate was in office before capturing him.

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    26. Re:Tax payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you can't buy an opteron system with NUMA link (3.2 GB/s between bricks) and you can't simply build a 500 TB data cluster by purchasing some CAT5, 100 250GB drives, 10 Gigabit ethernet cards and call it a day.

      Cray is building a Opteron Supercomputer called Red Storm that on paper is faster, thanks to hypertransport, also cheaper to cool and run. 3.2 GB/s, no, Redstorm will be over 55 TB/s aggregated memory bandwidth.

      National Nuclear Security Administration is buying RedStorm, its over 10K CPU's also, with upto 30K for growth. Same amount of CPU's, less power, cheaper, and faster. 90% efficency compared to Intel.

      4 CPU's a brick, is still 4 cpu's on 1 blade. Opteron will do 8 per blade.

    27. Re:Tax payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm rather mad at this idea, the system costs more than an opteron system
      Yes.
      costs more to run (heat/power)
      Yes.
      and is slower.
      Bzzt, wrong.

      Do you really think NASA computer scientists are so stupid as to buy these machines if there was actually a cheaper, faster alternative available?

      FWIW, this is the _second_ time NASA have placed an order for SGI Altix systems. One would guess that they were pretty happy with their first order, placed a year or so ago, to go ahead and buy even more of the same machines.

    28. Re:Tax payer. by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      Quite amazing...

      >The Origin server was equipped with 32 MIPS processors and eight I/O modules.

      I'm not familiar with specialized SANs.
      I didn't know about these - quite cool:
      http://www.sgi.com/origin/3000/bricks.html

      > had to sustain nearly 6GB per second of aggregate I/O throughput to achieve these world-record result
      > SGI TP9500 system is based on technology developed by LSI Logic Storage Systems, Inc., and sustained close to 3GB-per-second throughput during the backup
      > An SGI OriginTM 3000 server with SGI storage software technology was the platform for the backup and restore operation and had to sustain nearly 6GB per second of aggregate I/O throughput to achieve these world-record results.

      I understand that storage did 3GB/sec and the server had to do 6GB/sec in order to read-and-backup. The IX brick can have up to 11 PCI-X slots - I'd like to know if they used 11 FC HBA or more on this system...

      > Fibre Channel disk capacity was used to store 10.297TB of customer data, composed of files ranging from 2 GB to 42GB.

      Huge files! Smaller files would really bog them down.
      Incidentally, the disk array they used has a 2GB cache so if many files were 2GB in size, that helped a lot.

      > Single XFS filesystem figures
      > Backup of 1TB at file-level (in minutes): 7:09
      > Restore of 1TB at file level (in minutes): 15:29

      If my calculation is correct (1024GB/(15*60)) write (restore) per was 1.13GB/sec write and read performance was about twice as much, which probably are figures that we need to remember.

    29. Re:Tax payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you can't simply build a 500 TB data cluster by purchasing some CAT5, 100 250GB drives, 10 Gigabit ethernet cards and call it a day.

      Yeah, if I were building a 500TB data cluster, I'd probably use 200 250GB drives.

    30. Re:Tax payer. by geomon · · Score: 1

      The irony is, is that you say American's don't think science is sexy on an American site loaded with geeks (very many of which are American) who do.

      You must suffer from the Alanis Morissette syndrome of not being able to identify irony.

      The 'fact' is, the readers of Slashdot do not constitute even 1/10 of 1% of the US population. If you take a poll of people on the street, I doubt even one in ten has ever heard of Slashdot. And if you ask those same Americans about how they feel about the fundamental facts of science, you will find that most of them don't know squat.

      Your attempt to support your position that Americans are "science friendly" by pointing to when the article first appeared is misdirected. I didn't say that Americans don't cover science news at all. I just made the observation that Americans are, in general, more interested in whether Britney Spears has had a boob-job than whether fundamental research gets funded this year.

      As for being correct, I think that a close inspection of the facts as they stand will support my original post quite well.

      And as an American, it is my sworn duty to take a jab at the country I love.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  15. imagine... by pb · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...a Beowulf cluster of slashdot dupes.

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    1. Re:imagine... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Who needs to imagine? Just search for dupe. :D

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    2. Re:imagine... by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but would it run Linux?

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    3. Re:Imagine... by Shin+Chan · · Score: 0

      http://neowin.net/comments.php?category=main&id=23 076#comment261899 Humtidum.. *Whistles*

      --
      Proud owner of BOT2K3 [ bot2k3.net ]
  16. Article not written by a technical person.. by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .. or a very good writer.

    "They can also be modelled over a time period of weeks or months instead of over just a few days."

    Ohh sweet, so then what used to take days now takes months?

    And at one point in the article, it says "20 nodes" and then at another part it says "512 nodes." So like, what is it?

    You know what, I don't even care.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:Article not written by a technical person.. by orbit0r · · Score: 2, Informative

      And at one point in the article, it says "20 nodes" and then at another part it says "512 nodes." So like, what is it?

      Read the article:
      "It is using an off-the-shelf system and taken that and built a powerful system around 512-processors which are then hooked together to give considerable power."

      512 processors * 20 nodes = 10240

    2. Re:Article not written by a technical person.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Article not read by a technical person.

      The article is stating that the weather pattern studies would now be able to simulate activity periods of weeks or months rather than just days - NOT that the simulation runs themselves would take months rather than days!

    3. Re:Article not written by a technical person.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The time period that can be modelled in the simulator is now weeks or months, not just a few days.

      Presumably these longer simulations can be completed in times comparable to the existing shorter duration models.

    4. Re:Article not written by a technical person.. by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      "They can also be modelled over a time period of weeks or months instead of over just a few days."

      Ohh sweet, so then what used to take days now takes months?


      Think about a weather system: the more days they can model, the better. That's what this means; in a reasonable amount of time, weeks or months of activity can be simulated.

  17. well I guess the VT cluster will move to by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    to number 4 next time because of this sucker. it has 2 times the nodes as the earth simulator!!

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:well I guess the VT cluster will move to by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      to number 4 next time because of this sucker. it has 2 times the nodes as the earth simulator!!

      The VT cluster that made #3 won't be on the list, since it was taken apart and the parts sold off. They are building a new cluster, with hardware that is capable of actually doing science this time, rather than just running benchmarks.

      Even if they had kept the first cluster, it wouldn't be #4. Besides the cluster in this slashdot story, there is also Thunder, and that IBM cluster being built for the army, that are all faster than the first VT cluster.

    2. Re:well I guess the VT cluster will move to by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      umm, it was fully capable of scientific work you moron. that is why it was built. christ you are stupid.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:well I guess the VT cluster will move to by chez69 · · Score: 1

      did it actually do any scientific research? it was all PR. The new one they are building with Xserves will be the research cluster.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
    4. Re:well I guess the VT cluster will move to by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      umm, it was fully capable of scientific work you moron. that is why it was built. christ you are stupid

      No, it was crippled from the start because it didn't have ECC. They said that they could work around this in software, but now if you read their site as they build the new cluster, using XServes (which have ECC), they say that the original cluster was never intended to do production work. It was just a test.

      So, basically, the original cluster was built, ran the benchmarks to get on the list, and was never intended to do serious science, and was torn down and sold off.

      Outside of academic circles, this is called a "publicity stunt". It was not built to do science, and never did any science in its short existence.

    5. Re:well I guess the VT cluster will move to by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you moron!!! it did software ECC!!!! god you are an idiot. it did ECC is software and STIL GOT THOSE SCORES!!!

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:well I guess the VT cluster will move to by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      you moron!!! it did software ECC!!!! god you are an idiot. it did ECC is software and STIL GOT THOSE SCORES!!!

      You are totally clueless, aren't you? Their software error handling scheme is fine for benchmarks. It wasn't fine for real work. They built it, ran the benchmarks, and then took it apart and sold the parts, and are now building a new one, with hardware that is suitable for doing science.

      Here is a clue for you:

      "Well with the concept proven we now had to make sure we had a system capable of conducting scientific computation. We needed to upgrade the system to something with error correcting code (ECC) RAM. The Power Macs did not support it and the XServes were coming. So in January we tore the system down and started prepping for the XServes."
  18. Cluster != Supercomputer by ChaosMt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can understand the BBC making this mistake, but slashdot?! I'm sure this was also noted in the dupe.

    1. Re:Cluster != Supercomputer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand the BBC making this mistake, but slashdot?! I'm sure this was also noted in the dupe.

      Which I'm sure you also didn't read.

      So tell us, when is a cluster of supercomputers not a supercomputer?

    2. Re:Cluster != Supercomputer by telemonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a cluster of supercomputers :-)

      Seriously, the way the Altix is laid out... I believe it is a cluster of 512 processor supercomputers.

      This isn't uncommon. Look at ASCI BLUE, or some of the other large IBM SP2 based systems.

      --
      Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
    3. Re:Cluster != Supercomputer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well concidering the nodes in the cluster are due to be around 256 -1024 processors in size I think in this case it does count as a supercomputer.

      This is 256-1024 all running a single system image. SGI does make smaller clusters (4-8 proc/ssi clustered into larger systems), but in the case of project columbia we are talking larger systems.

  19. Spin by geneing · · Score: 1, Informative

    Aren't you tired of hearing how supercomputers "may help solve" all the problems in the world. If anything the impact of that supercomputer on shuttle will be nil. Developing massively parallel software takes years, by then this supercomputer will be obsolete.

    Another rant - why use Itanium processors? In order to get good performance from EPIC architechture you need specially optimized compilers, which won't be available for many years (by then this supercomputer will be obsolete). For now ibm's power architechture is a much better bang for the buck.

    1. Re:Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "P" in EPIC is parallel. The software in question needs to be paralle. Both take a while to get optimized.

      Where exactly is your issue?

    2. Re:Spin by Build6 · · Score: 1

      Another rant - why use Itanium processors? In order to get good performance from EPIC architechture you need specially optimized compilers, which won't be available for many years (by then this supercomputer will be obsolete).

      You're assuming the only decision-making criteria is performance. Cost, marketing/PR value, and not to mention politics, definitely factors in. Intel may be cutting NASA a major sweetheart deal.

    3. Re:Spin by flaming-opus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why use itaniums? Because itaniums are very fast at floating point math, and have 9MB of cache. It's not a perfect CPU, but it's not bad. Nasa is more than willing to optimize their code extensively. (Yes the optimizing compilers ARE available, just not in gcc. Both intel and hp have very good compilers for ia64) The IBM power architecture is also a very good architecture, but they are also VERY expensive.

      Mostly they use Itaniums because they are buying an SGI sollution. Nasa Ames has been a long time sgi customer. The cluster of itanium/linux altix machines is simply a kicker to their previous cluster of mips/irix origin 3000 systems, which replaced a cluster of o2000s, which replaced a cluster of power-challenge boxes. That's one of the reasons this purchase happen so quickly. All the physical/technical/knowledge/business infrastructure was in place.

      If you read the sgi press release, they are also cutting nasa a huge break on the price to win the contract. It's about $2million each for those altix boxes including fibre channel cards, switches, and storage. I can't believe SGI is making any money on the deal.

    4. Re:Spin by RageEX · · Score: 1

      NASA has been around for years. They've been developing their massively parallel software for years. And now they're getting a new system to run it on and continue whatever it is that they do these days. These systems are meant to be upgraded and users typically hang on to them for quite a long time. This system started out as a 128P or 256P single system a year or so ago. It's already grown to a cluster of 2 512P systems. And apparently they like it enough that they want 18 more 512P nodes. 1024P nodes are on SGIs roadmap by the end of the year.

      EPIC has been around for a long time. The compilers are already there. SGI uses Intel's compilers I believe. The performance is apparently very good. The Altix system posts very good SPEC benchmarks for a single CPU and the benchmarks scale nearly linear as you add CPUs. Plus the memory and I/O performance is out of this world.

      Why use Itanium? Because back when SGI decided to switch to IA64 in the late 90s there was no other promising commodity 64-bit CPUs being developed.

      Check the price on the SGI cluster from the first Slashdot post ... it's a freaking steal ... I doubt IBM or anyone else could provide better bang/buck.

    5. Re:Spin by flaming-opus · · Score: 1

      Oops. $8million ea. My bad.

      Even so, calling these machines "off the shelf" is really stretching it. The linux is close to redhat, though they do quite a lot of modifications for the altix. The processors are intel, but not mainstream. The chipsets are totally custom, including their craylink-derived memory router. The I/O controllers are completely custom until you eventually find a pcix slot. They contain a lot of cool technology, but off-the-shelf they aren't.

    6. Re:Spin by halfelven · · Score: 2, Informative

      How did this comment got moderated "informative"? There's definitely something wrong with the moderators today.

      SGI Altix uses the Intel compilers. They're pretty damn good on IA64. They're available today.

      Also, the massively parallel software is already up'n'running. NASA has been using for decades SGI supercomputers - traditionally it's been the MIPS/Irix architecture. A while ago, when SGI told NASA that they were going to migrate to Intel/Linux, NASA simply recompiled their software to Linux, which is not too difficult, since Irix is pretty much standard Unix (i did some porting from Linux to Irix and often the software simply compiles with no change).
      Also, Altix systems are essentially the same hardware architecture as MIPS-based SGI Origin with the exception of the CPU (and a different OS on top), so the differences are really not that big; it's just the transition from Irix to Linux.

    7. Re:Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't suppose you mean specially optimized compilers like this one by any chance?

  20. Make that 11 Re:only 10 times faster? by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    They could make it 11 times faster merely by continuing to use whatever it is they already have in addition to the new cluster.

    "But this one goes to eleven!"

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  21. Itanium? by iamdrscience · · Score: 1, Troll

    Can anyone point out any significant advantage of the Itanium that justifies the fact that it costs ridiculously more than its competition (i.e. AMD Opteron)? The only reason I can think of to explain why NASA would go with an Itanium cluster over something else would be Intel giving them a great price break on them. In which case I'd like to assert that Intel is just doing it for the free promotion a la Apple (remember the G5 cluster Virginia Tech bought?).

    1. Re:Itanium? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      There aren't any 512-way Opteron systems in production yet, I'd expect a wait. I'm not even sure if any 8-way AMDs are commercially available. In case you haven't looked, Opteron 8xx CPUs are bloody expensive too. I don't think Itanium systems can be properly compared against Opteron 1xx and 2xx chips when discussing massive single-system-image computers.

      Also, clusters != super computer. This has been discussed many times.

    2. Re:Itanium? by cyngus · · Score: 1

      I am sure the decision on what platform to use was based far more on the fact that they could get 512 processors per node. The SGI Altix platform exclusively uses Itanium 2 processors. I an not aware of a 512-processor Operton system that is available. While this system has 20 nodes its is far less "clustery" than most "supercomputers" like the VT cluster that uses over a thousand nodes. Expect this cluster to get far higher performance, particularly since each node could be considered a supercomputer in its own right. Plus, yummy NUMA. -Engage brain, then type.

    3. Re:Itanium? by iamdrscience · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm sorry, I didn't read the article very carefully, I thought this was a large cluster of single processor computers rather than a small cluster of supercomputers. It does make sense that they're using Itaniums for this. Still though, I find it a little disturbing that my post above is now modded troll considering it really was an honest question. Whatever though.

    4. Re:Itanium? by djohnsto · · Score: 5, Informative

      Think of it less of a win for Itanium and more of a win for SGI Altix (that happens to use Itanium). The SGI Altix machines have a single system image with 512 processors (there are 20 of these clustered together). As far as I know, this is actually the cheapest and highest performing system that can use 512 nodes in a single system image. Other choices (which I'm not even sure scale to 512 processors) include Sun (slow), Power (expensive), and MIPS (SGI predecessor to the Altix - slower). Also, they are working on methods to increase single system image size to 2048 nodes, I believe an industry first. Some workloads just like running in single system images much better than on clusters.

      As for Itanium vs. Opteron - the Itanium kicks the Opteron's ass in floating point. Since NASA is presumably going to be doing a lot of engineering simulations, good FP performance is highly desirable. Having 6 MB of cache per node probably helps the Itanium beat out the Opteron for large memory footprint workloads as well.

      Basically, until Cray releases Red Storm (not sure if they'll stay in business that long), an Opteron system doesn't exist that can match the performance of the SGI Altix.

      Finally, Itaniums are NOT "rediculously more" compared to the 8xx Opteron line (which is the Itanium's real competitor in this area).

      --
      Dan
    5. Re:Itanium? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Informative
      Can anyone point out any significant advantage of the Itanium that justifies the fact that it costs ridiculously more than its competition (i.e. AMD Opteron)?

      It does floating point a lot faster than Opteron.

    6. Re:Itanium? by halfelven · · Score: 1

      Can't find that link anymore, sorry, but i saw a blog page or a newspiece or something where someone from SGI explained how they benchmarked various CPU architectures and Itanium is the one that performs best in a thousand-CPU environment.
      I'm sorry for being too vague, but that's all i remember.

    7. Re:Itanium? by flaming-opus · · Score: 1

      All good points.

      The memory interconnect is much more important to this system than the CPU. Yes, this CPU may perform foo% better than that one, using this benchmark, but 512 of any modern CPU pretty much rocks. Who really cares about the cost of the CPU on a system like this? Other costs are really going to dominate any different in the cost of the cpu.

      The Mips based origin product from sgi scaled to 512 CPUs. (1024 I think) The cray X1 can supposedly scale to 4096 CPUs, but nobody can afford more than 256. Red storm will do several thousand CPUS, as did its predicessors asci red and cray t3e, but these are previous generation machines.

      Power maxes out at 32 CPUs (soon 64) per OS. Sun claims to cluster together 4 by 72 processor boxes, but it's not really SSI. Even the earth simulator clusters together a bunch of 8 cpu nodes with a shared filesystem.

    8. Re:Itanium? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      Still though, I find it a little disturbing that my post above is now modded troll considering it really was an honest question. Whatever though.

      You're new here, aren't you?

    9. Re:Itanium? by joib · · Score: 1

      As a minor nitpick, the Red Storm isn't a single system image, it's more like a cluster with a really quick proprietary interconnect.

  22. Re:pork by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    .02 FRN's says it's Feinswine.

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  23. Official SGI Press Release by rf0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Official SGI Press Release by foobsr · · Score: 1

      At least, the value of this information has increased by a mod point since first instance (when I put it up :)

      Maybe this is why we ever need more computing power. Call it repetitive information gain strain syndrome.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  24. How about a bewolf cluster of these ? by thammoud · · Score: 0

    Oh.. It's already a cluster.

  25. Re:pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking about this also.

    Seriously, what, exactly does nasa need all of this computing power

    It seems to pork~ish to me.

    Cool computer, though.

  26. VT paid for the G5s by tentimestwenty · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple didn't give VT any computers, they paid for them because they were the cheapest solution.

    1. Re:VT paid for the G5s by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, that's why I said that Virginia Tech bought them. The point was that they were cheapest because Apple gave them a huge price break, presumably for the promotion it gave them (i.e. "Holy shit! Our computers are so fast and awesome that they're using them in supercomputer clusters!").

      You'll notice that no large clusters have built out of G5s since, and it's because nobody else is going to get price breaks significant enough to make it the cheapest solution.

    2. Re:VT paid for the G5s by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      Another benefit to using the G5s was the software designed by Apple (I forget the name of it) specifically for clustered environments. That's also why they upgraded from the G5s to the G5 X-Serves a few months ago.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    3. Re:VT paid for the G5s by djward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple gave them no price break on the G5 towers. The systems were purchased at EDU pricing straight from the Apple Store, online.

      Apple DID cut them some slack on the additional RAM, charging industry-norm prices for the memory instead of their usual markup. They probably saved them some money on the sidegrade to Xserves, too, but I don't know the details.

      Anyway, when the initial cost assessment was done, the G5s were cheapest not because of a price break, but because they were... well... cheapest.

    4. Re:VT paid for the G5s by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

      If you count the educational discount as a true discount you're correct, but they did just go to the Apple online store and order 1100 of them at the same price any other education customer would get:

      Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan talks about VT's G5 supercomputer

      There wasn't any "extra" discount. Since most supercomputers are built by education, government or the military, the standard discount Apple happens to give is more like the actual price. I imagine all companies offer the same level of reduced price so it's a moot point. They paid going rate for them.

    5. Re:VT paid for the G5s by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      Please cite sources. I'm pretty sure that is not the case. I mean, even if my assertion that the price break made them cheapest isn't true, certainly they must have been given some sort of price break for buying hundreds of G5s.

      Regardless though, I find it hard to believe that they would be the cheapest solution outright. I remember looking up what a 64 bit PC comparable to the G5 towers would cost and it was a few hundred cheaper (granted this was not a pre-assembled system I was spec-ing out, just the sum cost of the various parts).

    6. Re:VT paid for the G5s by djward · · Score: 1

      I can't cite links, but I went to Tech and I knew people who were in charge of the project.

      And you are right, being the cheapest solution included some estimation of the amount of labor needed to put the things together. The got volunteers to pop the network cards in and put the towers in the racks, but they would have needed to pay people (or spend much more time) to assemble entire systems from scratch.

    7. Re:VT paid for the G5s by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Price breaks? You're getting your imagination confused with reality again, Dr. Science. They bought them at retail prices.

      Their final budget was $5.2 million. They bought an 1100 node cluster. Everything except the nodes themselves were volunteer jobs. That means the price of a single node was $5.2M / 1100 = $4,727. Guess what cost almost $5,000 at the time? That's right! A Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5.

      They didn't even use an educational discount. It must hurt to be so wrong.

    8. Re:VT paid for the G5s by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      You're just making wild assumptions that contradict the news stories and the interviews from the maker of the VT cluster and Apple. VT bought the systems from the Apple Store, and didn't get a discount.

      And the Army purchased the entire initial shipment of the newest XServes. No large clusters since then? Ha!

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    9. Re:VT paid for the G5s by psbrogna · · Score: 2, Informative

      not quite true: The US Army bought 1,500 xServes recently for a G5 based supercomputer.

      ref: http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/06/22/0222210.s html?tid=137&tid=179&tid=185&tid=190

    10. Re:VT paid for the G5s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did they hook them all up with?

  27. Why do they need this? by Secret+Chimp · · Score: 1

    Do they need a supercomputing cluster to figure out where foam is going to fall off next? Or perhaps to compute down to the millimeter exactly how much crap they'll be in if something goes wrong again...

    1. Re:Why do they need this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they need a supercomputing cluster to figure out where foam is going to fall off next?

      Of course not. The supercomputer is to study how to best convey the information such that NASA management actually pays attention and takes action.

    2. Re:Why do they need this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the point. This computer is used to simulate the bureaucracy, i.e. should anything happens, engineers will know where their reports go and how the management ignores them. If their simulation is that good, then it will also simulate what boneheaded decision the management comes up with.

      Do you think you need 10,240 node to do technical simulation? No. Simulating stupidity takes a lot more of computing power.

  28. You're Missing the Point! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Yes it takes weeks or months instead of days, but it does it an order of magnitude more expensively! This same technology has been employed for years at the DMV, and look at the results you get there. This is the Government we're talking about...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  29. Some CLusters by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 0

    Ive not personally played with performance cluster myself, but I seem to remember a DOS clustering project. I would like to see something like that mature, just because of the few known OS's that run on top of it.

    With that, it would be really nice to just have a Performance Cluster VM OS that you could install whatever OS and have the computing power of buttloads of machines. It sure would put to use all of those 486's I have.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Some CLusters by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone know of a better site than /. to discuss tech related topics because, as the post I am responding to shows, /. users are getting dumber and dumber as time goes on.

    2. Re:Some CLusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buttloads of machines Would that be metric or imperial unit buttloads?

    3. Re:Some CLusters by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      For one, your low UserID just means that you had nothing better to do then sign up for an account on a news portal around its birth. Dont try and use it as some indicator of IQ or superiority.

      Nextly, I simply voiced some opinion, and left it broad on purpose for the sake of discussion. Yes, I KNOW that even Windows itself takes control of the hardware, so my DOS cluster idea wouldnt work for that OS specifically. There ARE OS's that simply use DOS... Run as a compliment to DOS.

      The Clustered Virtual Machine OS is a great idea. Rather then being vague and completely pointless in your retort, why dont you voice why **I** personally am stupid for suggesting such.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Some CLusters by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Because a simple google search would have turned up MOSIX, OPENMOSIX, LinuxSSI amoung other SSI clustering environments.

      You didn't even try.

    5. Re:Some CLusters by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      ... Except for the fact that these projects are meant to run underneath/alongside LINUX. My suggestion is to be able to load ANY OS on a Virtual Machine micro-OS, such as Windows or BeOS. The best I could hope for with your suggested projects is to load Virtual Machine software on the Virtual Linux image... which, would add a layer I dont want.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    6. Re:Some CLusters by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Then buy VMWare's enterprise products but you will find it run on those 486's you where talking about.

  30. Re:DUPLICATE!!! by geomon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't think so. I wrote a submission on August 4th titled "When Does It Make Sense To Quit?" about a software developer who has not made a significant change to their premire application in nearly 7 years. I thought it an appropriate topic for Ask Slashdot.

    It has been in the 'pending' bin for five days.

    Weird.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  31. Re:Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a karma WHORE !

  32. Irony emulator by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

    Isn't the computer running the space shuttle built around one of those physical disk memory systems?

    So this super computer will be used in part to emulate the computer running on the space shuttle - probably one of the oldest designs still in regular use.

    So little memory the launch, orbit, and descent programs cannot be loaded simultaneously.

    1. Re:Irony emulator by flaming-opus · · Score: 1

      If it aint broke, don't fix it. The only way to have a device that's very, very reliable is to keep it very, very simple.

      The shuttle's computer, btw, is a scaled back version of the IBM s/370 mainframe processor.

    2. Re:Irony emulator by kenaaker · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I worked on the space shuttle simulator (lo, these many years ago), and the shuttle computers are derivatives of the computers that IBM originally used in the B52's. They were called AP-101's, and if I remember correctly were Harvard Architecture systems with a separate instruction and data store memories. I think they had 128K (32 bit?) words for instructions and 64K (16 bit?)words for data.

      The simulator originally ran on IBM System 360 mod 75's (serial numbers 1, 4, and 5). When I was working on it, the simulator was running on a IBM 3033 (370 architecture) machine running MVS, and had a hardware interface that attached 3 AP101's to the system IO channels. The shuttle hardware outside of the AP101's and environment were modelled in the 3033, even including the "slosh dynamics" of the fuel in the external tank. The simulator was written in 370 Assembler with macros for the programming control structures.

      One of the funniest things about running the simulator came out of the major failure tests. The simulator had a distinct "abend" that indicated that the vehicle had a position that was below the surface of the earth.

    3. Re:Irony emulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...that indicated that the vehicle had a position that was below the surface of the earth

      I am sure that if the real shuttle tried hard enough it could get a couple of metres "below the surface of the earth"

  33. As lame as it sounds... by Ron+Harwood · · Score: 1

    ...I litterally started to salivate at the prospect of a cluster of this magnitude.

    1. Re:As lame as it sounds... by Secret+Chimp · · Score: 1

      Nerrrrrrd!

    2. Re:As lame as it sounds... by jbmarsh80 · · Score: 1

      by the mere fact that you are a member of "News for Nerds", doesn't that also make you one?

    3. Re:As lame as it sounds... by Secret+Chimp · · Score: 1

      Perhaps including an ASCII picture of Homer would have gotten the joke across better.

    4. Re:As lame as it sounds... by Anztac · · Score: 1

      So wait... does that mean you've been classically conditioned to associate computing power with the coming of food? :: imagines a closed box with a computer and a nerd in it... every time the computer rolls over a certain nuber of cycles the nerd gets a twinkie ::

      --
      ~Anztac
  34. Re:Abuse of government funds? Nah... by telemonster · · Score: 1

    SGI said the reason they went with the Itantium2 versus AMD Opteron is that the Altix was being developed before the Opteron went to market.

    --
    Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  35. Okay, that's big but... by Hamlin · · Score: 3, Informative

    if they'd gone with G5 Xserves they could have had 23,888 Dual 2GHz systems with 17.916 Petabytes of storage (assuming they just went stock on the high-end systems).

    Okay and one question about the article. Was he saying 1000 Gb of RAM per system or 1000GB per system?

  36. Re:pork by mogalpha · · Score: 1

    Cynical, and blatant promotion of the company you work for :)

  37. Re:Should have went AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA does not care about money. It's US taxpayers' money. They just want the biggest baddest thing they can think of.

    By the way, Windoze and LSD wouldn't run on this kind of machine.

  38. Wouldn't that generate by wiredog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a Beowulf cluster of 503's?

  39. Re:Fucking mods by geomon · · Score: 0

    Some of the trolls are quite good today as well. They have been unceremoniously drubbed off the boards as well.

    Ah well, the tools we give to the masses.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  40. Re:Hey BSD trolls! by telemonster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    IRIX > Linux.

    --
    Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  41. Re:pork by FWMiller · · Score: 1

    Cynical yes, blatant promotion of my company no. What does a supercomputer have to do with a SIP User Agent?

    I used to work for NASA, thats why this makes me angry to see. I could care less if they buy a big supercomputer, but to label it as helping the return to flight is just bs. This really is nothing more than a fat subsidy for Ames and California.

    --
    Frank W. Miller
  42. Bowie Song... by CaptainPinko · · Score: 1

    The David Bowie song to which you are refering to as "Major Tom" is actually called "Space Oddity" from his 1969 album "Space Oddity" originally released as "Man of Words/Man of Music".

    --
    Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
    1. Re:Bowie Song... by ODD97 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they may also be referring to "Major Tom - Coming Home" by Peter Schilling, which was featured in an amateur video of a satellite launch.
      In fact, I'd put money on it.
      See it here

      --
      The emperor is naked.
    2. Re:Bowie Song... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The David Bowie song to which you are refering to as "Major Tom" is actually called "Space Oddity"

      Or it could be "Ashes to Ashes" from "Scary Mosters and Super Creeps".

  43. 10240 is a strange number? by SalsaDot · · Score: 1

    Wonder why its "10240"?

    You'd think they'd have gone 8192 or 16384, or 10000 or something.

    10 chips in a module, 1024 of them perhaps?
    Curious.

    Anyway, certainly a LOT of IMAGINING will get fulfilled if you work at nasa!

    1. Re:10240 is a strange number? by halfelven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because it's a 20-nodes cluster, each node being a supercomputer with 512 CPUs.

      The article was written, unfortunately, by a rather clueless journalist. Here's a link to the proper information:

      http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2004/ju ly/supercomputing_ctr.html

  44. Re:Itanium? CHRIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please learn to spell RIDICULOUS.

  45. Supercomputing for what?: +1, Informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    You don't need a supercomputer to compute flight paths.
    The machine will, (to borrow a phrase from the con-in-chief
    Richard B. Cheney), in all likelihood, be used for designing
    more WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,

    Be patriotic: Impeach The Felons

    Thanks in advance,
    Kilgore Trout

  46. Will this computer study the shuttle or the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having recently covered an analysis (currently pursing an MBA) on the Challenger tradgedy which had some similar organizational culture flaws as the Columbia tradgedy, I'd certainly say that all the computing power in the world is not going to be able to exterminate the elitism and over-confidence of NASA and its contractors.

  47. Here's hoping by Hamlin · · Score: 1

    they have a really good diagnostic setup. Just occured to me, if one cpu or ram card goes bad they're going to have to take down one of those 512 processor nodes to replace it. It would really suck if there wasn't something letting you know exactly which one and where it is located.

    1. Re:Here's hoping by halfelven · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "firmware" (the equivalent of BIOS) they have on the Altix is pretty damn smart, it's like an OS of it's own. It can do diagnostics, and inventory and a truckful of other things.
      Powering up a huge complex beast such as an Altix is no easy task. You need lots of "intelligence" at the hardware level to do that.

    2. Re:Here's hoping by The+Ego · · Score: 1

      The "firmware" (the equivalent of BIOS) they have on the Altix is pretty damn smart

      As are most instances of EFI firmwares. SGI might add some features to their firmware (the E in EFI stands (or stood) for Extensible), but that's what you get with EFI. I can't wait to see EFI kill the IBM PC Bios.

      And now EFI is released under a BSD licence :-)

    3. Re:Here's hoping by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      I assume the L1/L2 controller setup is similar to the Origin 3000 systems. It really was handy for many tasks, although it was possible to power up the system just fine, as long as you knew the order boxes had to appear in, and were fairly swift with the old fingers.

      --

      jh

  48. where is SUN? by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 3, Funny

    where is SUN Microsystems?

    well someone had to ask :)

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:where is SUN? by halfelven · · Score: 1

      In Sun's head, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are still fighting for supremacy. They've got this split personality syndrome and are still scratching their collective head figuring out which way to go. By the time they make up their mind, i'm afraid the sun will be setting. (pun intended)

    2. Re:where is SUN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, since when did Sun EVER ship NUMA based systems? Their systems are large shared memory SMP boxes for threaded apps like Oracle. Different market that the ones SGI specializes in.

  49. Closer Scrutiny of Moderators by MooseByte · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "I hate this moderation system."

    I'd definitely like to see some closer scrutiny of the negative mods. Meta-moderating doesn't seem to be weeding enough of the bad ones out. The Moderator Guidelines make it clear to:

    "Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this".

    A sizable minority of moderators are clearly ignoring that, if they ever even bother to read the guidelines at all. I think out of all my mod points, I've only ever assigned a negative mod once, maybe twice. There's really no need to most of the time, since even though I often strongly disagree with the poster, that's NOT what moderation is supposed to be about.

    Having said that, email CmdrTaco with any abuse. He says its rare he removes moderator access, but apparently it does happen.

  50. Price ? by noselasd · · Score: 1

    What's the price tag on such a system ?
    Or, what's the price for just one 512 processor box ?

    1. Re:Price ? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      It's big, but what is the cost to RUN the system? The one time costs to buy are often but a fraction of those to run it over the next N years. Also, think about energy use, the A/C they need for whereever they install it will be HUGE. They better shovel in some more coal/neutrons/oil/gas at the local power plant when this thing is running.

  51. Maybe they can run /. on it... by BJH · · Score: 1

    ...ina few years time, CT and Co. are going to need that much computing power to keep track of all the dupes...

  52. the article is severely misleading by halfelven · · Score: 4, Informative

    It makes you believe this supercomputer is made out of commodity components.
    That's blatantly false.

    The SGI systems are highly proprietary equipments that provide very large bandwidth between the nodes, extremely low latency and tight integration. They're not regular Beowulf clusters. They really are single systems with hundreds or thousands of CPUs, all of them running the same single instance of the OS (as opposed to typical clusters which run one OS instance per node).
    Because of the tight integration, the software does not have to obey the same constraints as when running on commodity clusters. Especially the requirement for total parallelization does not stand anymore.
    Therefore, problems which cannot be translated into 100% parallel algorithms, and therefore do not run efficiently on commodity clusters, are easily tackled on SGI supercomputers.
    That's why they can charge a high price on their systems - because they can solve problems that are not accessible to "normal" computers.

    That being said, the system at NASA is indeed a cluster, but it's a "small" cluster (a handful of nodes), each node being a supercomputer with hundreds of CPUs. It's a hybrid that provides the best of both worlds.

    1. Re:the article is severely misleading by joib · · Score: 1


      Therefore, problems which cannot be translated into 100% parallel algorithms, and therefore do not run efficiently on commodity clusters, are easily tackled on SGI supercomputers.


      Umm, no. If a problem can't be parallelized, it won't run any better on that 10000 cpu system than on a 1 cpu system.

      Where the SGI wins over a beowulf, is for problems that require lots of low latency communication between the nodes during the computation. In this case the shared memory architecture (programmed using threads) is a lot faster than message passing between the nodes (MPI, typically). However, for serial algorithms, neither the SGI nor the beowulf will be any faster than a comparable 1 cpu system.

    2. Re:the article is severely misleading by halfelven · · Score: 1

      It's not either black or white, there are shades of gray in between.

      I said "cannot be translated into 100% parallel algorithms", with an emphasis on "100%". Of course, completely serial algos will not benefit at all from multi-CPU processing, no matter what architecture.

      What i was refering to were the algos that can only be partially parallelized, that require a lot of communication between the node.
      But you said that yourself. ;-)

  53. More than one use by TheVidiot · · Score: 1


    In related news, NASA's new computer to be used as Half-Life 2 beta test-bed.

  54. Floating point performance by skyhawker · · Score: 1

    I think you may be wrong when you consider floating point performance, which I suspect is the key driver here. From what I have seen googling around a little, Itanium 2 is better than Opteron on floating point computations.

    --

    The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
    -- Scotty.
  55. Wow by SurfTheWorld · · Score: 1

    Just think how fast that scrollbar will fly across when they install Fedora Core 2! It'll probably take 2 seconds!

    -c

    --
    Do it for da shorties
  56. Supernova calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this supercomputer will be used to do some astrophysical simulations, including supernovea and other star death calculations.

    1. Re:Supernova calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't wait for universe to be one huge, boiling sea of black holes...

  57. There are limits by sakusha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a limit to what computer power can do for you. I'd rather see the money being spent on human resources: people who know what they're doing. There's an old saying in the business world, I wish I knew who first said it, "for any technological problem, the limiting factor is never technology, but rather, human resources." In other words, if your technology has problems, throwing more tech at it is unlikely to solve the problems. Only more human intelligence applied to the situation will improve things.
    Having the fastest supercomputer in the world won't help you one bit if nobody thinks to run a simulation of what happens when a chunk of foam blows a hole in a wing. I keep thinking about Frank Borman's statements to the Apollo 13 Commission, he said it wasn't a failure of technology, it was a failure of imagination, nobody ever imagined there could be a problem. Computers have no imagination. They give answers, but nobody's asking the right questions.

    1. Re:There are limits by C_Kode · · Score: 1

      You are only correct to a point. The human imagination can come up with millions of things that can go wrong. There is no way those same people could calculate each possibility thoroughly. That is where super-computers come in. They are to mathematically test those theories through simulations. A peice of foam falling off the hull is only one in an infinite possibilities. The idea is to find a middle ground. NASA employs alot of people, I don't think $160 million for 10k processors that can do the work of 10 million people is to much to ask.

    2. Re:There are limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, they laid off forty people to be able to afford this system.

  58. In a safe move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA will form 13 30 member committees to investigate the horrible dangers of such computing power. America is expected to give half a shit about returning Astronauts to space in 2031 after China and Russia dominate.

    This posting will also be investigated for safety as the radiation from the monitor may pose a slight risk and everything in this world should be 100% safe along with space being 110% safe.

  59. Re:Will this computer study the shuttle or the peo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get an MBA without being able to spell "tragedy" or "pursuing?" I want one!

  60. Re:pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm presuming you couldn't care less? I don't understand how people make that mistake.

  61. No, you imagine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of beowulf cluster jokes. Be warned Gallagher and Carrot Top, you've got some serious competition coming your way!

  62. Re:MOD DOWN by DonkPunch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In soviet russia, posts filter out you.

    --

    Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
  63. Re:Will this computer study the shuttle or the peo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like spelling is more important than content? My apologies..

  64. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a Beowolf cluster of 10,240 node Itanium 2 clusters... That would kick an exponential amount of ass!

  65. Re:MBA == Worthless person knowing nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fish for "shock and awe" elsewhere with your useless and pathetic acronymn!

    Bush has an MBA from Harvard and is still a certified moron idiot shit for brains bafoon.

    Bush on Blacks in Brazil:
    "You have those people here?!"

  66. Good news for Intel by roman_mir · · Score: 1

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

    Hahaha, my comment is a dupe!
    I MOD because I care.

    ---
    From the department of ironic punishment.

  67. Re:pork != Flambait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor moderator, must be threatened by sombody calling bullshit on this crap in public as NASA tosses out any lame excuse they can not to continue shuttle flights/research/WORK.

    -1 Pissoff to Spiteful Moderator

  68. Doom.... by MortgageMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I don't care as long as you can play DOOM on it...

  69. Re:Should have went AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illiterate - yes, offtopic - I don't think so.

  70. SCO Tax by Nonillion · · Score: 2, Funny

    They better pay their $7,157,760 ($699/CPU) in SCO tax or McBride is going to be stomping around saying "NASA is screwing us!"

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  71. MBA Studies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It certainly would be a tradgedy[sic] if you forget to use a spellchecker during your MBA studies, you fucking TARD!

  72. Imagine.... by enginuitor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster off... oh, wait...

  73. Re:only 10 times faster? by nboscia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The issue has become space to put the machines. As it is, the pre-existing supercomputers are being moved to other rooms and there is barely enough space to accomodate the 10k as it is. Many supercomputing facilities have a similar problem. There are not many rooms that have the environmental controls needed to run such massive systems.

    As for the comment on making it 11x faster - the other systems serve a different purpose (customer base and funding source)... and they were moved to another location to make room for Columbia.

    On a cool note, it looks like they are filming the building of this system so we can see one of those time-lapse videos.

  74. Re:pork by nboscia · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASA is not the sole user of the system. Anyone within the U.S. can use it. We support many university projects that require the use of supercomputers. This purchase is a benefit to the entire country, not just NASA.

    It is most unfortunate that people are not aware of all that NASA does for them. A majority of all research projects are in collaboration with industry vendors, universities, non-profit organizations, scientific corporations, and so on. There are few that are specific only to NASA. The range of customer database is wonderful and there is such variety in the areas of research (not just aeronautics and space technology, but biology, earth science, nanotechnology, optics, and so on). We all help each other to advance our knowledge, and computers like this make it a lot faster.

  75. Linux by ece · · Score: 0

    SGI, I LOVE YOU! Who would have dreamed Linux could be scaled to this many processors? IRIX is able to do just that, gracefully. If there's a company who contributes to Linux's acceptance in high-end computing, viva SGI!

  76. NASA continues to miss the point by Hugh-know-who · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Columbia disaster was not due to a lack of computing power, but rather to a culture of denial. The failure of mid-level and senior management to listen to their people prevented any action being taken until it was too late. In a way, this mirrors the broader American culture of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, typified by a complete refusal of individuals - particularly but not exclusively individuals in powerful positions - to take responsibility for their own actions, inactions or failures of any kind.

  77. Er, wasn't there a... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Windows datacenter version?

    --
    C|N>K
  78. Re: NASA does not care about money. by nboscia · · Score: 2, Informative

    NASA does not care about money. It's US taxpayers' money

    Thanks for the troll post.. you're a wonderful example of how uninformed citizens can be. FYI: The government defines NASA's budget each year, so there is a very high concern for money. It takes months upon months of civil servants fighting for funding out of that money pool. There are a lot of research programs, and not nearly enough money to fund them. Particularly, in the case of Columbia, there were massive layoffs to fund this. I'd like to see you make your statement to all those who now do not have jobs because of the lack of money (many were needed operational engineers, not just research staff). It's sad when people lose their jobs over something like this, but it did allow something good to happen. It's unfortunate that arrogant fools are blind to such politics.

  79. Nasa Funding by Uplore · · Score: 0

    NASA To Get 10,240 Node Itanium 2 Linux Cluster .. And in other news, NASA joins up the Network Gaming Association of America(NGAA). NASA spokesman said today that should they not be able to send a team to the moon, they will still be able to send a team to the Unreal Tournament 2004 games.

    --
    I couldn't think of a sig.
  80. NUMA is a bad idea for supercomputers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Programming the SGI NUMA has many of the same issues as the all-cache KSR systems. If you need shared memory, you should use shared memory. With NUMA you can either ignore the location of your data and pretend it is local or you can explicitly control its location. The latter can be very efficient but extremely tedious. A more modest amount of shared memory in the style of the Japanese Earth Simulator is much more effective.

  81. It's "NASA" not "Nasa" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an acronym. Please use it properly.

  82. Now If You had Your Own Supercomputer by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what kind of software is available for testing and modeling real life systems?

    It's one thing to bring together a large number of CPUs and connect them with a well known network scheme, and it's another thing to write a bunch of software to take advantage of a supercomputer.

    Although NASA may already have a lot of supercomputers and a lot of software, a new systems with so much more power is meant to run new software.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  83. Re:Abuse of government funds? Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, the minor inconvenience of 40-bit addressing on the Opteron wouldn't have worried them at all, right? After all, 1TB ought to be enough for... wait...

  84. The corresponding quote by ZorroXXX · · Score: 1
    >Computers have no imagination. They give answers, but nobody's asking the right questions.

    "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." -- Pablo Picasso

    --
    When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").