Slashdot Mirror
96 Processors Under Your Desktop
Roland Piquepaille writes "A small Santa Clara-based company, Orion Multisystems, today unveils a new concept in computing, 'cluster workstations.' In October, you'll be able to choose between a 12-processor unit for less than $10,000 or a 96-processor system for less than $100,000. These new systems are powered by Efficeon processor from Transmeta and are running Fedora Linux version 2.6.6. Apparently, this new company has friends in the industry. You already can read articles in CNET News.com ("A renaissance for the workstation?"), the New York Times ("A PC That Packs Real Power, and All Just for Me," free registration, permanent link) and the Wall Street Journal ("Orion Sees Gold in Moribund Workstations," paid registration). The company is targeting engineers, life scientists and movie animators. It's too early to know if the company can be successful, but I would certainly have to get one of these systems under my desk. In this overview, I've picked the essential details from the three stories mentioned above."
That was my first thought. I guess that's the point of going with Transmeta...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Fedora currently is either Core 1 or Core 2. 2.6.6 is a kernel version number.
Kernel version != Distribution
Saying "Fedora 2.6.6" is like saying a car is a "Ford 2.4 liter".
The pricing seems quite steep. 800/cpu for 12 configuration, 1000+/cpu for the 96 cpu configuration. I can see why they have friends in the industry the prospect of selling 10 to 100 times the equipment per seat must have marketing departments salivating.
If your'e going to spend that kind of money though theres alllready solutions that will provide that level of processing cheaper.
There is also the utilization isssue, programming tasks hardly require 96 processors except on compile and link. You don't need 96 processors to wait for a keystroke. The same holds true in applications. You don't need cpu's waiting for a user to decide what to do.
I woiuld guess it is more a physicical issue. Processors are probalby arranged 3x4, and can fit that way into a 2 foot wide case to fit onto an "average" desk. Stacking these boards 8 high gets to a height that can fit under a desk.
Could be cost. 10K and 100K are nice round numbers.
I've realized that most strange tech descisions can usually be traced to some guy in sales...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
"Wouldn't same board communication be more frequent, hence needing the faster connection?"
I guess it depends how you look at things. On the same board you have one processor talking to one other processor. Between boards, however, you have up to twelve processors talking to up to twelve other processors. So to me it makes sense to me to have more bandwidth between boards than internally on a board.
12 processors fit on one board, and 8 boards fit into the chassis they chose.
Can the editors PLEASE STOP POSTING PRESS RELEASE COPY?!?!
If you're going to post a story announcing a product or discovery, at least link to a weblog or site that actually has a little commentary on the subject, or the original site itself.
Roland "Fuckyfacey" Piquepaille is neither of these.
Thanks.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON