Virginia Tech Supercomputer Up To 12.25 Teraflops

hrm by gutterandthestars · 2004-10-25 23:04 · Score: 5, Funny

6.40tflops should be enough for anybody

Re:hrm by tmj0001 · 2004-10-25 23:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hans Moravec's book "Robot" suggests that 100 teraflops is about the level required for human intelligence. So we are up to 10% of his target. But human intelligence still seems very far away, so either he has badly underestimated, or our collective programming skills need significant improvement.
Re:hrm by TimothyTimothyTimoth · 2004-10-25 23:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think Morevec's method of simulating human intelligence involves modelling a scanned copy of the human brain, in real time at a neuronal level. It would be similar to modelling the global weather system, a software capability we already have. Current neuroscience would expect this model to be functionally equivalent to a human mind in terms of matching inputs and outputs. As an aside, I know that Ray Kurzweil has I much higher required estimated of a 20 petaflop (20,000 teraflop) computer, based on more conservative assumptions. 20 petaflops is due around 2009/10 under Moore's law. (And I for one offer an early welcome to our expected new AI overlords ...)

--
It doesn't matter which ape activates the Monolith
Re:hrm by SnowZero · 2004-10-25 23:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

I actually asked Hans a similar question at a talk he gave a while back, and he didn't really answer it, to my disappointment. My question was that "In nature the algorithm and computer were evolved together, so we'd expect them to be at a similar level of advancement. So, even if we get a computer as fast as a human, it might it not be nearly as smart since our programs do not use it efficiently enough?" In other words, Moore's law isn't helping us write better software (in some ways quite the contrary).

I'm a robotic software researcher, so this notion really affects me. IMO Software will lag well behind hardware, since it doesn't scale out nearly as well. Representation is of course a huge problem I won't even try to touch... But rest assured lots of people are working on all these things. Btw, It also doesn't help that CPU designs aren't even trying to make AI-style algorithms fast, but we can't blame manufacterers for that util there is demonstrable money to be made.
Re:hrm by TimothyTimothyTimoth · 2004-10-26 00:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

By the way, IBM BlueGene/L is going to produce 360 teraflops by end 2004, so if the report of Moravec's estimate is correct, and he is correct, that AI Overlord welcome could be pretty soon.
(Although I don't believe brain scanning quite hits the resolution mark required yet.)

--
It doesn't matter which ape activates the Monolith
Re:hrm by Randy+Wang · 2004-10-26 00:49 · Score: 5, Funny

I, for one, welcome our new Beowulf overlord...

--
--- Egads, I glow in the dark!
Re:hrm by diersing · 2004-10-26 00:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have a question from a casual observer who comes across this Hokie machine and the top 500 list every now and then. What is it these computers do?

Hearing it referenced in terms of AI helps, but is that the only purpose for a research facility to build one of these mammoths? Are there practical applications for the business world (other then the readily available (read commercial) clustered data warehousing)?

I'm not trolling, just curious.
Re:hrm by benhocking · 2004-10-26 01:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, it's not quite that simple. As someone whose research is in modeling the hippocampal region CA3 (about 2.5 million neurons in humans, 250k neurons in rats), I can tell you that the connectivity of the system is a very important variable. And there is still much we don't know about the connectivity of the human brain. Furthermore, there are hundreds of different types of neurons in the human brain. Why so many different types if only 2 or 3 would do? Seems evolution took an inefficient path - unless, as is probably the case, the differences in the neuron types are crucial for the human computer to work the way it does. Granted, some differences might be due to speed or energy efficiencies which are not absolutely critical for early stages, but I suspect that many differences have to do with the software (or wetware in this case) that makes us intelligent.

After we've solved that minor problem, I think teaching the system will be relatively trivial. I.e., if we understand the wetware enough to reconstruct it, we most likely understand how its inputs relate to our inputs, etc., and we could teach it much the same as we teach a human child. Of course, we might also figure out a better way to teach it, and in so doing we might even find a better way to teach human children. (Some of our research has recreated certain known best learning strategies, it is probably only a matter of time before simulators disover a better one!)

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Re:hrm by autophile · 2004-10-26 02:14 · Score: 4, Informative

According to Wired...
Now that the upgrade is complete, System X is being used for scientific research. Varadarajan said Virginia Tech researchers and several outside groups are using it for research into weather and molecular modeling. Typically, System X runs several projects simultaneously, each tying up 400 to 500 processors.
"At the end of the day, the goal is good science," he said. "We're just building the tools. The top 500 is nice, but the goal is science."

--Rob

--
Towards the Singularity.

Speed at top by luvirini · 2004-10-25 23:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Reflecting on the comment: "hould still be in the top 5 when the new rankings come out in November." There seems to be a serious push for multiprosessor systems, currently the ranking seem to consist of a couple of stars, few big ones(this computer among them) and a huge group of third category, and then the "used to be great" computers. But from my reading of the trends seems that there will be more and more crowding at near the top, so I expect the second category to be much larger, with much smaller differences.

Re:Speed at top by TAGmclaren · 2004-10-26 00:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

currently the ranking seem to consist of a couple of stars, few big ones(this computer among them) and a huge group of third category, and then the "used to be great" computers

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I think so far most of the commentators have failed to pick up what makes this system so incredible. Srinidhi Varadarajan, the designer of the system:

Varadarajan said competing systems cost $20 million and up, compared to System X's approximately $5.8 million price tag ($5.2 million for the initial machines, and $600,000 for the Xserve upgrade).

"We will keep the price-performance crown," he said. "We don't know anyone who's within a factor of two even of our system. We'll probably keep the price-performance lead until someone else shows up with another Mac-based system."

Think about that for a second. The system isn't just in the top 5 (or at least top 10), but it's the cheapest by a factor of at least 2. What's even funnier from a tech standpoint is that the creator doesn't expect it to be beaten until another Apple system is built - which puts a very interesting spin on the old "Apple's more expensive".

Anyway as to in/out of the top 5, Varadarajan reckons there's another 10-20% in optimisations left in the tank...

Data taken from the recent Wired Article on the subject.

--
Iran has endorsed

Density by GerbilSocks · 2004-10-25 23:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

VT could theoretically pack in 4x the number of nodes in the same space that occupied the original System X. Could we be looking at at least a 50 TFlop (minus 10% overhead) supercomputer with 8,800 cluster nodes?

If that were feasible, you could be looking at toppling Earth Simulator at a fraction of the cost.

Re:Density by UnknowingFool · 2004-10-25 23:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Not necessarily. Processing power doesn't really scale linearly like that. Add 4 times as many processors doesn't mean the speed will increase 4x.
First, as they try to increase the speed of the system, the bottlenecks start becoming more of a factor. Interconnects is one big obstacle. While the new System X may use the latest and greatest interconnects between the nodes, they still run at a fraction of the speed that the processors can run.
Also the computing problems that they are trying to solve may not scale either with more processors. For example, clusters like this can be used to predict and simulate weather. To do so, the target area (Europe for example) is divided into small parts called cells. Each node takes a cell and handles the computations of that cell.
In this case adding more processors does not necessarily mean that each cell is processed faster. Getting 4 processors to do one task may hurt performance as they may interfere with each other. More likely the cell is further subdivided into 4 smaller cells and the detail of the information is increased not the speed. So add 4x processors only increases data 4x but it doesn't mean that the data is solved any faster.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:2.3GHz? by Ford+Prefect · 2004-10-25 23:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

But the XServers come at 2.0GHz, with the desktop powermacs at 2.5GHz. Is this a mistake?

From the article:

Apple said last week that the 2.3GHz machines were a one-off deal for Virginia Tech and not something the company plans to announce for broader consumption anytime soon.

What I really want to know is what they do with the old machines. The articles speaks of the cluster being 'upgraded' - are the older G5s replaced, or do they just become part of the new cluster?

Still, I suppose there's one or two unwanted G5s - anyone want to send me a couple? :-)

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?

Crays... by CaptainPinko · 2004-10-25 23:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

are not designed for the same type of work as clusters. If a probably is not effeciently parallizable and requires shared memory then a Cray is the only feasible option A Cray is not a cluster. It's like comparing mph for a sports car and truck: the car is faster but they are meant for different types of loads.

--
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.

Re:Crays... by Coryoth · 2004-10-25 23:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

are not designed for the same type of work as clusters. If a probably is not effeciently parallizable and requires shared memory then a Cray is the only feasible option A Cray is not a cluster. It's like comparing mph for a sports car and truck: the car is faster but they are meant for different types of loads.

To be fair to the original poster, the Cray system he was referencing is a cluster system. Then again, its a cluster system with very impressive interconnects for which System X just isn't comparable (ie. The Cray system will scale far far better), not to mention the Cray software (UNICOS, CRMS, SFW), and the fact that the Cray system is an "out of the box" solution. So you are right, there is no comparison.

Jedidiah.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts

The list of Supercomputers by ehmdjii · 2004-10-25 23:20 · Score: 5, Informative

this is the official homepage of the listing:

http://www.top500.org/

Re:2.3GHz? by mmkkbb · 2004-10-25 23:21 · Score: 5, Informative

they were sold off by MacMall at a slight discount around 6 months ago, along with a certificate of authenticity and a "property of virginia tech" sticker

--
-mkb

Re:So compare it to...... by Coryoth · 2004-10-25 23:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Compare it to this new Cray system. Bang for the buck would make the Apple system better.

Yup, except the Cray comes with far superior interconnect technology, a better range of hardware and software reliability features built in, software designed (by people who do nothing but supercomputers) specifically for monitoring maintaining and administrating massively parallel systems, and most importantly it all works "out of the box". You buy a cabinet, you plug it in, it goes.

Why do these Apple fans, who justifiably claim that comparing a homebuilt PC to a "take it out of the box and plug it in" Apple system is silly, want to compare a build it yourself supercomputer to one that's just plug and go?

And yes, comparing MacOS X to UNICOS for supercomputers is like comparing Linux to OS X for desktops (in fact that's very flattering to OS X as a cluster OS).

Jedidiah.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts

Re:Old stuff... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-25 23:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you're referring to the old G5 Powermacs used in the original System X...they were sold. I bought one!

Thank you VT by Alcimedes · 2004-10-25 23:56 · Score: 4, Funny

I have it on good insider knowledge, that this entire cluster is going to be put to the best possible usage.

Not disease solving, not genetic mapping, not calculating weather patterns.

No, what they're going to do is remaster the Original Star Wars series, right from the laser disc versions!!!!

Imagine, a digitallly remastered bar scene where Han shoots first!!@$!@#!one!@

/kidding

Actually, VT will be #8 this time around by daveschroeder · 2004-10-26 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Prof. Jack Dongarra of UTK is the keeper of the official list in the interim between the twice yearly Top 500 lists:

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/performance.pdf (see page 54)

There have been some new entries, including IBM's BlueGene/L, at 36Tflops, finally displacing Japan's Earth Simulator, and a couple other new entries in the top 5.

Here's just the top 16 as of 10/25/04:

http://das.doit.wisc.edu/misc/top500.jpg

No matter what anyone says, Virginia Tech pulled an absolute coup when they appeared on the list at the end of 2003: no one will likely EVER be able to be #3 on the Top 500 list for a mere US$5.2M...even if the original cluster didn't perform much, or any, "real" work, the publicity and recognition that came of it was absolutely more than worth it.

Also interesting is that there is also a non-Apple PowerPC 970 entry in the top 10, using IBM's JS20 blades...

Hm.. with this much compute power.. by elemur · 2004-10-26 01:29 · Score: 4, Funny

If you add in VirtualPC... presumably the clustered version.. you should start to get to the level of compute power that was recommended by Microsoft for Longhorn... though it still wouldn't be the high end. Expect some sluggishness..

Simulations by Ian_Bailey · 2004-10-26 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative

The vast majority of clusters are for simulating very complex systems that require lots and lots of calculations.

You can get a few hints by looking just at their names.

The number one "Earth Simulator Centre" is fairly self-explanatory, going to their website show they create a variety of models for things such as weather, tectonic plate movement, etc.

The number 3 LANL supercomputer "is a key part of DOE's plan to simulate nuclear weapons tests in the absence of actual explosions. The more powerful computers are designed to model explosions in three dimensions, a far more complex task than the two-dimensional models used in weapons design years ago." I imagine that most US government simulations would be doing something simmilar.

Slashdot Mirror

Virginia Tech Supercomputer Up To 12.25 Teraflops

24 of 215 comments (clear)