Slashdot Mirror


Japan's Newest Linux Supercluster: 13TB RAM

green pizza writes "Following its sale of a 10240 processor cluster to NASA, Silicon Graphics Inc has announced that it's supplying a 2048 processor Altix 3700 Bx2 to the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. Aside from running Linux on Itanium2 processors, the beast also features 13 TB of RAM!"

163 comments

  1. That'll suffice by tgv · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess that'll be enough to run Longhorn then.

    1. Re:That'll suffice by di0s · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And *maybe* Half-Life 2.

    2. Re:That'll suffice by waynelorentz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess that'll be enough to run Longhorn then.

      But OS X on Pear PC will still be a laggy.

      (Posted from my beloved Powerbook, so Apple fanbois shouldn't mod me down. I'm in a two-Mac household).

    3. Re:That'll suffice by danormsby · · Score: 0

      Wonder how long it would take to realise you had a memory leak?

      --
      Omnis amans amens
    4. Re:That'll suffice by logic+hack · · Score: 0

      Until SP1 of course.

    5. Re:That'll suffice by IHateSlashDot · · Score: 1

      Oh god. This is funny. Hahahahahahahahaha. Jesus. I can't stop laughing. The moderators agree as well. They laughed so hard they gave this a 5! Very Funny. Retard.

    6. Re:That'll suffice by tgv · · Score: 1

      Actually, the moderators went all over the place. I got around 20 mods up and down or so (didn't count them though).

      But did you ever take a look of the specs for Longhorn?

  2. oh my... by Quasar1999 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember back in my electronics course when we had to design the flip-flop grid for memory... the teacher said he'd give 100% to anyone that could draw out 64K of memory... 13TB just makes me cringe...

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:oh my... by Big+Nothing · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "I remember back in my electronics course when we had to design the flip-flop grid for memory."

      You mean the Kerry grid?

      *cough*

      Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

      --
      SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    2. Re:oh my... by norkakn · · Score: 1

      that was sram though (and probably not very efficient sram)

      Dram is a whole lot simpler and scales better

    3. Re:oh my... by pronobozo · · Score: 1

      "we had to design the flip-flop grid" I hear Bush is really good at that. :-) okay... back to work

      --
      ------
      insert sig here,here, and here
    4. Re:oh my... by faragon · · Score: 1

      Nowdays I still have to deal with 256Kbit EPROMS (32Kbyte) when programming embedded systems. The funniest of these board is that the ROM, including RS-232, RTC process scheduling, plus the application code usually fits in just 8KBytes (a bit of V25 assembly and the big chunk in C), leaving 24KBytes unused.

      By the way, in other areas, I dealed with 512KByte applications able to load and deal up to 2GB data in RAM. It is not very realistic to solve nowdays real world problems, still programming in a weird programming language, to have more than 128MBytes of code: as a matter of fact, and via chained probability, the bug probability could reach the untratable. The only code I ever saw that could reach 128MByte limit was an experiment of self mutating code, with dubtful results.

      There are real problems requiring huge chunks of data, usually related to non linear modeling (meteorological/solid/liquid/gas/nuclear physic simultations, statistical data mining/contrast/analysis, etc).

      Anyway, give me tons of RAM, just in case.

    5. Re:oh my... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Would that have been a 6 cell fully static
      CMOS memory bit?

      Your teacher must have been a sadist!

  3. Re:Nothing to see here. by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree. These rather wasteful supercomputers are getting less and less impressive.

    You know what would be impressive? Published results!

    I mean they consume gobs of resources [power, material, waste]. That's not impressive. That's an American city block. What would be impressive is having to show for it at the end of the day.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  4. bottleneck by igny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do all processors share 13TB? Because if they don't the bottleneck is that subprocesses have only 13TB/1024 available ( a mere 13GB each), and still have to communicate a lot.

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:bottleneck by lweinmunson · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what SGI does. Large single image systems with ccNUMA memory.

    2. Re:bottleneck by amorsen · · Score: 5, Informative

      The whole point of Altix is that it's a single system image, not a cluster. Every processor can access all 13TB. That doesn't mean communication is free, of course, but it's vastly faster than your favourite Beowulf cluster.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:bottleneck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just thought that I'd point out that the 13TB of RAM for this computer, as well as for NASA's, came from the good ol' US of A - Micron Technology.

  5. 640kb by digitaltraveller · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hear this is the reccomended base configuration for Windows Longhorn...

    1. Re:640kb by schwillyd530 · · Score: 1

      Too bad you still coudn't run Doom 3 on it.

    2. Re:640kb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why that much ram would be needed. That is 21,810,380.8 times more than anyone would ever need in a computer!

      -Bill Gates

  6. Re:so ? by szo · · Score: 3, Informative

    it's 13TB, not 3TB. Which is according to the article: "over 13 terabytes of memory - the world's largest memory capacity"

    Szo

    --
    Red Leader Standing By!
  7. Re:so ? by WhiteLudaFan · · Score: 1

    So it says 13TB of RAM... that's a cool 6.5 GB per processor. Beats anything i run :)

  8. Nuclear research by Big+Nothing · · Score: 5, Informative

    The puter will be used for nuclear research (bushspeak: nucjular reesatch) by the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. More info about the organisation, their projects, etc. can be found at: http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/index.cgi.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    1. Re:Nuclear research by jrumney · · Score: 1
      bushspeak: nucjular reesatch

      "Scandanavian doing a bad Bush impression"speak, you mean?

  9. got us beat by theMerovingian · · Score: 5, Funny



    2048 processors, 13 terabytes of ram, AND it comes with a smaller, more ergonomic controller.

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    1. Re:got us beat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a few years back: Dilbert got loads of money and decided to buy a Cray. Gigabytes of HD, a few Mega of RAM.
      Price: US$ 10M
      Dilbert's question: does it come with a color monitor?

  10. Nuke Simulator? by k0de · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So an American company is selling a computer to a Japanese organization that is ideal for simulating nuclear explosions. Interesting.

    --
    I'm wrong and so are you.
    1. Re:Nuke Simulator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      japan isn't exactly one of the so called rogue countries..
      but maybe that's not thoroughfully explained on us tv ^^

    2. Re:Nuke Simulator? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      surprised to not see a bunch of
      "Global Thermonuclear warfare" jokes.....
      Seems ripe for the picking.

      --
      music lover since 1969
    3. Re:Nuke Simulator? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      So an American company is selling a computer to a Japanese organization that is ideal for simulating nuclear explosions. Interesting.

      Interesting indeed, considering that the Japanese have the necessary materials, infrastructure, and means of delivery, I suspect they will be revealing a deployed nuclear capability soon. This announcement serves as a veiled warning to North Korea.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    4. Re:Nuke Simulator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      naturally... Japan will be a nuclear power in the next 20 years.

  11. Re:Nothing to see here. by Big+Nothing · · Score: 0

    I was actually refering to the fact that it was impossible to read or post comments on this article for a few minutes. When trying to enter the article slashdot replied "Nothing to see here, move along".

    I guess the moderators didn't find it too funny, though, it's been modded -1.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  12. undecided by koi88 · · Score: 0


    running Linux on Itanium2 processors

    But isn't Itanium kinda evil (as opposed to slashdot darlings PPC/Power and Opteron)?
    While Linux is super cool? So should I like it?

    --

    I don't need a signature.
    1. Re:undecided by hype7 · · Score: 2, Informative
      But isn't Itanium kinda evil (as opposed to slashdot darlings PPC/Power and Opteron)?
      While Linux is super cool? So should I like it?


      I know you're trying to be humourous, but it raises an interesting question: is this thing faster than the Big Mac?

      -- james
    2. Re:undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything is faster than that piece of shit mac.

    3. Re:undecided by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      serious response to funny comment:
      The deal is that the Itanium2's are better(relative) processors when everything is compiled for them. The hitch is that in terms of price for performance Itaniums are near the bottom of the pile (highest performance != best value).
      Finally, in this situation (price be damned), there is not any reason to worry about value, just performance. Thus Itanium wins.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:undecided by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      I do wonder why they went with the Itaniums. Perhaps Intel is having an "All 64-bit chips must GO!!" clearance or something.

    5. Re:undecided by Leffe · · Score: 1

      But isn't Itanium kinda evil (as opposed to slashdot darlings PPC/Power and Opteron)?
      While Linux is super cool? So should I like it?


      Nonono, on Slashdot Itanium is the best thing since sliced bread. And if it isn't... I'LL MAKE IT!!

    6. Re:undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itanium is pretty good as a HPC CPU.

    7. Re:undecided by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 3, Informative
      is this thing faster than the Big Mac?

      And the awnser is: it depends on what you're doing with it.
      This thing is significantly more tightly coupled than VT's cluster, and uses shared memory as opposed to clustering, so for alot of tightly coupled problems it will be *far* more efficient.

      As for raw processing power, the Itanium2 has the same theoretical peak floating point performance as a PPC970 at the same clock. In reality the Itanium is likely to come closer to achieving it's peak than the PPC970 due to it's massive cache (9MB compared to the 970's 512KB). However the Itaniums in an Altix3000 are only running at 1.6Ghz according to SGI's page, while the 970s in VT's cluster are now at 2.3Ghz. So the BigMac would have some advantage on loosely coupled problems that it can fit in it's smaller cache and memory.

      So while the BigMac might beat this system at Linpack, the benchmark used to determine the top500, in the domain this system is to be used for (3d modeling of nuclear blasts) it's tighter coupling and greater RAM will make it much faster.
      --
      "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    8. Re:undecided by turgid · · Score: 1
      But isn't Itanium kinda evil (as opposed to slashdot darlings PPC/Power and Opteron)?

      But isn't saying that offensive to turkeys?

    9. Re:undecided by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      I don't dispute that. So are the other chips. And they are otherwise outselling the Itaniums by an order of magnitude. Intel has been quite sheepish about their 64-bit line & the performance/price value you get isn't that spectacular. I'm just wondering why Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute bucked the trend--not saying the Itaniums are actually bad.

    10. Re:undecided by drw · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Itanium2 is a fast processor, especially when it comes to optimized floating-point calculations. Yes, it is expensive and so the price/performance ratio is not as good as common desktop processors mostly for two reasons:

      1. Large die area (mostly due to huge amounts of on-die cache) - chip price is directly related to how many cores that fit on a silicon wafer.
      2. The Itanium2 is a low volume product, so R&D and verification costs are a higher percentage of chip costs.

      The biggest problem with the Itanium2 is not its performance, but the innability of Intel to lower its cost. This causes it to being relagated to niche markets like HPC where performance is everything.

    11. Re:undecided by halfelven · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with you people? "Itanium is bad" is an urban myth. Yes it's expensive. Yes, Itanium 1 was indeed bad. But this is Itanium2. It might still be expensive, but it's currently the best CPU for large supercomputers - machines which run hundreds of CPU in parallel, which is exactly what SGI does.

      SGI is using the best tool for the job. When (or rather IF) AMD comes up with a better CPU for this kind of workload, they'll probably migrate to that.

      Don't get me wrong, i'm using AMD on all my PCs, but a massively parallel supercomputer is a different thing.

    12. Re:undecided by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't read one of my other posts. I agree Itanium2 is a fine enough chip. I just think it is expensive. I don't think it is a good value & I am used to seeing government-sponsored research pick a lower cost product over the top-of-the-line every time. In the US, many of the research institutes I know of are consciously choosing to make AMD or Apple clusters because of how far they can stretch their research dollar.

    13. Re:undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, it should be using the Opteron, right?

      Well apart from the fact that the Opteron can't even *physically address* 1/10th of the memory in this thing, what do you think its puny caches will do to the scalability of the interconnect?

      So, would you like a second chance? OK... should it be using Opterons? No? Good.

    14. Re:undecided by Noksagt · · Score: 1
      Let me guess, it should be using the Opteron, right?
      I didn't say that!

      Well apart from the fact that the Opteron can't even *physically address* 1/10th of the memory in this thing,
      To be pedantic: the maximum physically addressable RAM of the Opterons is 1/8th of what the Itanium can address. Obviously I'm not advocating trying to use 8 AMD chips for each Intel chip! But neither are they maxing out the RAM that the machine can address. And RAM isn't everything. The UltraSPARCs can address TBs of RAM and have a larger cache. Few use those.

      The "Big Mac" managed to perform quite well, despite the fact that the PowerPCs have the same RAM limitation as the AMD chips and a smaller cache.

      So, would you like a second chance? OK... should it be using Opterons? No? Good.
      And I give you a second chance to read my message. Did I advocate a specific chip other than the Itanium? No--I just expressed interest in why they chose it. And you can have another chance to do math in public. Even if I did think they should have chosen the Opteron, would the Opteron have been a poor choice. Who knows. I don't know what their demands are. But clusters aren't always limited by memory and cache restrictions.
    15. Re:undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Opteron can address 'only' 40bits (~1TB), and the PPC970 can address 42bits (~4TB), while the Itanium2 can do 50bits (~1000TB).

      So the Itainum2 can access 2^8 times what the Opteron can, not just 8 times.
      And the PPC970 can access 2^2 as much as the Opteron, a somewhat smaller advantage.

    16. Re:undecided by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      Yup--I was completely wrong. Thanks for the crash course & smackdown. You've made it clear enough why they chose what they did.

      Still, other systems do address large amounts of RAM. The ASCI-Q at Los Alamos has 33 TB (!) on alphas.

    17. Re:undecided by joib · · Score: 1


      Still, other systems do address large amounts of RAM. The ASCI-Q at Los Alamos has 33 TB (!) on alphas.


      But the ASCI-Q is a cluster, IIRC consisting of 2048 4-cpu SMP nodes. Thus each node only has 33 TB/2048 = 16 GB memory.

    18. Re:undecided by joib · · Score: 1


      It might still be expensive, but it's currently the best CPU for large supercomputers


      Except for, say, POWER5, and vector processors (NEC SX-6, SX-8, Cray X1). If you by "best" mean raw performance and bandwidth, cost and power consumption be damned.


      SGI is using the best tool for the job.


      Perhaps they are, perhaps not. That's not the issue. The thing is that a number of years ago (when AMD64 was barely a blip on the radar) they made a strategic commitment to IA-64. Spending vast amounts of money to port all their stuff to another architecture and royaly pissing of customers and ISV:s just for a modest improvement in performance or price/performance of the cpu:s (which wouldn't matter much since the major cost of the Altix is the interconnect and NUMA stuff) doesn't sound like a cunning plan to me.

      That is, the IA-64 doesn't have to be the absolutely fastest chip on the block, as long as it stays competetive. It makes no sense for SGI to switch architecture for a 10 % performance gain.

    19. Re:undecided by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      You're right and I knew that. I figured that out when you made the first comment on addressable memory. The Altix is the machine with the largest amount of RAM that is globally addressable across all processors. That wasn't clear to me from reading the press release, but other reports were much more informative. My comment was really to say there is more than one way to skin a cat. Yes--it is an achievement to build a single 2048 processor beast. But I wanted to point out that fine super computers with a lot of RAM and a lot of processors were built without Itanium2s. I would have offered an AMD or PowerPC cluster with comparable RAM & outstanding performance, but I don't really know of any.

  13. Re:Wow! by KillaKen187 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think the line should be: now that's one impressive Beowulf cluster... In Japan

  14. This comes as a shock by fr0dicus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Linux is a good choice for a supercomputing cluster? No shit sherlocks. This isn't front page news, it's barely news at all. No wonder readership figures are declining.

    1. Re:This comes as a shock by Eisvogel · · Score: 1

      mhhh, I looked up some other (German) domains.

      Not sure about the results. There are some huge fluctuations(~20x) in the data without obvious explanations. Maybe some can explain how they generate those numbers:

      1. referers posted
      2. ad-downloads
      3. click-through monitoring
      4. ...?
  15. Obligatory by schleyfox · · Score: 0

    13TB should be enough for anyone

  16. Is this the BIGGEST sale for Itanium2, so far ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Funny



    A whooping sale of 2048 Itanium2 processors in one shot - is this the BIGGEST sale for the Itanium2 chip, so far ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Is this the BIGGEST sale for Itanium2, so far ? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      No, last week NASA bought 10240 Itanium processors.

  17. Re:MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION by RealProgrammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Haven't we had enough rudeness the last four years? I happen to be pleased by most of those results (though not, for example, that anyone still uses Windows). But you're a cowardly troll for anonymously posting such off-topic flamebait. - Get some stones and at least use a pseudonym - Stay on topic - Avoid calling people names like "Eurotrash" - In short, show a little class

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  18. Honest curiosity by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hear gobs about huge clusters and Linux as the OS that makes it all happen but I don't think I've ever heard other OSes uses like this.

    Could someone make an "off the top of their head" list of SuperComputing cluster and OSes that are used in them?

    I *am* a Linux user and I'm actually kinda curious if Microsoft has an answer to this area of computing?

    1. Re:Honest curiosity by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most clusters run the vendor Unix. IBMs runs AIX or Linux, SGIs run IRIX or Linux, Alphas run Tru64, x86 clusters run Linux. The ultra-high-end custom machines run obscure custom Unix ports. Microsoft is trying to break into the HPC market, but so far only Cornell and Rice are buying.

    2. Re:Honest curiosity by Junta · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would say IBM sells more Linux than AIX clusters anymore...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Honest curiosity by flaming-opus · · Score: 1

      Linux has been EXTREEMLY successful at breaking into the supercomputer market. Particularly in the 40-200 dual SMP node size. Some really large systems run linux, but not as large a majority as is the case with the smaller systems.

      Probably the two most successful supercomputing product lines are the IBM p-series clusters and HP's alpha-server SC line. Sun sells clusters of sunfire 6800's and up.

      The IBM uses 1-32 way SMPs running on POWER[3-5] processors and running AIX. They use a proprietary interconnect switch called the SP switch, the most recent incarnation of which is called the Federation switch. The SP switch is faster than the commodity cluster interconnects, but not when you divide it by the number of CPUs in the big SMP boxes. One of the main strengths of the IBM systems is the absolutely HUGE I/O bandwidth of the large systems. I've seen real-world: 15 gigaBYTES per second to a filesystem. The product line has been around for a decade, and is well understood, and a good performer.

      The HP (formerly compaq, formerly DEC) alpha server uses smaller SMPs for the SC line. Each node is a 4-way SMP running Tru64 (i.e. OSF/1) Unix with quadrix as the interconnect. These systems used to totally trounce any other cluster product, but are getting long in the tooth. HP stopped development of new systems about 4 years ago, and recently released the last CPU rev for these systems. They are a little reluctant, however, to publish performance number, as the 1.3ghz alpha processors still get performance about the same as HP's newer Itanium2 based systems. Tru64 Unix, while never commercially successful performs very well, and is quite suited to this application. The TruClusters software and the integrated cluster filesystem make systems administration on these big systems much simpler than linux clusters. Currently the #3 fastest super in the world is an SC. Since this is the end of the product line, they will all probably disappear.

      HP also sells some of their HP-UX based systems, which now use itanium2 processors, to supercomputing customers. Though they make 128-way SMPs, they sell those as super-servers, not for hptc customers. Instead they stick with the 2 and 4 way nodes with infinaband or myrinet. Most of these are sold with linux, but some use hp-ux. I can't see any real advantage to using hp-ux in that sort of environment, and apparently no one else can see one either.

      Sun sells clusters of their big SMP boxes into the hptc market. These clusters run solaris and use Sun's proprietary sunfire-cluster interconnect. The interconnect is REALLY fast, but maxes out at 4 nodes. Thus you can string together 4 72-way (actually 144-core) SMPs for a 288cpu (576) cluster. These aren't the fastest CPUs on the planet, but aren't half bad. The interconnect is good, and the software availability is really good. I think most of these aren't sold as PURE compute clusters. Rather they are likely some hybrid of super-compute and server-type operations.

      Fujitsu sells linux/itanium boxes, but also has a primepower cluster which uses their solaris based sparc64 SMPs clustered using commodity interconnects. As with the sun solution, they provide a host of software options, decent CPUs, and a fairly hefty price tag when compared with commodity clusters.

      SGI also still sells their legacy origin (MIPS cpu / Irix os) systems. Since they max out at 1024 CPUs per system image, the really large systems are actually clusters of origins. Irix scales really well to a lot of CPUs, but each of the processors is just not very fast. The system is interconnected with craylink.

      That really describes the bulk of the cluster products. As for non-cluster supercomputers ----- Asci-red runs a proprietary microkernel OS called PUMA. Cray XT3 runs catamount. Cray T3e runs unicos/mk (ChorusOS). Cray X1 runs unicos/MP (irix). NEC SX-series run a system-5 derivative unix called Super-UX. Hitachi SR8000 uses HI-MX (Mach).

      Dig around on top500.org and you can probably find out more.

  19. good question by koi88 · · Score: 1


    is this thing faster than the Big Mac?

    Interesting question. Especially considering they have roughly the same number of processors...
    But from the article I get the idea the SGI is kind of... less clustered. It seems to share its memory while on the Big Mac, each G5 computer has its "private" 4 GB of memory.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  20. Re:MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, the gloves come off when Europeans dare to judge us unfairly just because our country (and Britian) has the cojones to oppose evil in the world. Just because you guys have given up trying to change the world for the better, doesn't mean we will.

    I would post under my account, but the moderators have seen to it that I never get to post my opinions anywhere. I am here to help destroy the anti-reality shield around the slashbots. You guys need to WAKE UP and see what is really going on out there. It isn't pretty.

  21. Luckily by bmajik · · Score: 5, Informative

    SGI has been working through this in hardware for over 10 years.

    The distributed shared memory concept of the Altix (first seen on Origin 200 / Origin 2000 in the commercial space, and previously based on the Standford DASH/FLASH projects) uses a hardware based memory router.

    Each PE has local ram and local CPUs and a "MAGIC" chip that routes cache invalidations, memory block "ownership", etc messages to other PE's as necessary. Unlike SMP designs, cache coherencvy doesn't destroy the whole shebang because its not a shared bus, it's a heirarchial directory system. I.e. PE0 knows it only needs to contact PE3, PE6, and PE13 to invalidate a cache block. Turns out that thats much more efficient than broadcasting a message to PE0-PE63 saying "invalidate this block!"

    Now, as far as _all_ processor sharing the full 13TB - i am not sure.

    The memory density / system image equation is sort of a tradeoff, as more PE's require more router hops in the topology. More router hops increase latency. SGI has sold 256 and 512p single-image systems, and may have gone up to 1024 or 2048p / system.

    To be perfectly honest, the system-system latency is different than the intra-system latency, but nothing like it would be on an x86-with-ethernet shared nothing cluster.

    SGI's big installations are cool as they have advantages of both SMP and MPP designs.. each autonomous machine gives you signle-image benefits but with really high proc counts.. . and then you link a bunch of those together to get this outrageously sized machine.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:Luckily by jon3k · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/

      "Scaling to 256 Itanium 2 processors in a single node, Altix 3700 leverages the powerful SGI® NUMAflex(TM) global shared-memory architecture to derive maximum application performance from new high-density CPU bricks." So I'm guessing its still 256 CPU's per node.

    2. Re:Luckily by browngb · · Score: 1

      This is dicrimination. If you keep talking over my head, I'll feel short. That violates my human rights.

      --
      Generally, I get bored with my replies and give up on making sense halfway through.
    3. Re:Luckily by flaming-opus · · Score: 3, Informative

      At NASA sgi has been experimenting with 2048 proc single system image. Since the japan system has yet to be deployed, it will likely be a single system.

      The SGI magic memory controller incorperates the numalink (origionally called cray-link) router they leveraged from the T3e work. This router uses worm-hole routing, which starts forewarding a packet as soon as the address bytes are read. This means that the added latency of going through several routers is often much less than packaging up the packet in the first place. On the hardware side of things it's not the number of router-hops that limits the scalability of the system. Rather the greater the size of the memory, the coarser the size of the directory blocks. With 13TB of memory you are probably invalidating dozens or hundreds of pages at a time. SUCK.

      The cache coherency of SGI's cc-numa machines makes them increadibly easy to program. However, there is a big overhead. Since most supercomputing software is written with MPI, rather than with posix-threads, you don't really behefit from it anyway. I think you can disable the hardware coherency on a per-process basis, which would greatly speed up MPI software.

    4. Re:Luckily by joib · · Score: 2, Informative


      At NASA sgi has been experimenting with 2048 proc single system image.


      The Columbia system still consists of 20 512-cpu systems, so I would assume this consists of 4 such 512-cpu systems.


      The cache coherency of SGI's cc-numa machines makes them increadibly easy to program. However, there is a big overhead.


      Well yes, the basic problem is that OpenMP/pthreads assumes a flat memory, whereas a NUMA box is all but flat. So the kernel better be real smart about how to map the memory onto the hardware to minimize remote memory accesses. And the programmer should of course avoid accessing memory from all over the place, although it's technically possible.


      Since most supercomputing software is written with MPI, rather than with posix-threads, you don't really behefit from it anyway. I think you can disable the hardware coherency on a per-process basis, which would greatly speed up MPI software.


      I'm pretty sure the SGI MPI implementation is pretty well optimized, either by using shared memory or by sending the messages directly over the numalink.

    5. Re:Luckily by RageEX · · Score: 1

      Minor correction ... The CrayLink branding of SGIs router and node interconnect was pure marketing and had no relation to the technology accquired from their purchase of Cray.

  22. Aye, but... by Lardmonster · · Score: 3, Funny

    13Tb of RAM, but how much swap?

    --
    The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
    1. Re:Aye, but... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Typically it is highly reccomended that on Irix (dunno if they're running Irix or not, but it would make sense) you have a swap space at least as large as main memory (for crash dumps). That said, back in my SGI days we had a lot of machines with 4GB of RAM (this was several years ago) and 4GB disks (the vendor was stingy with the system disks). Since Irix required about a GB of disk back then (early 6.5 days) we only had room for 3GB of swap. This wasn't a huge problem because the OS was rarely taking up more than 3GB of memory when it crashed, and even when it was the undumpable data was rarely interesting.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  23. Not the largest memory capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry to spoil the excitement for everybody but actually, Columbia far exceeds the Japanses system's memory capacity at 20 TByte. See this description for details of Columbia's config.

    1. Re:Not the largest memory capacity by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Yes but this computer has about 3 times as much RAM PER PROCESSOR as Columbia has.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
  24. Japanese Nuclear Program? by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1, Funny

    You don't suppose they ever do any weapons research, do you? Hmmm, what to do...

    1. Make sure GWB is really, really truly reelected
    2. Hint to Japanese you'll tell White House that Japan has WMD program - "Okinawa has such pretty beaches - it'd be a shame if they got all shot up now, wouldn't it?"
    3. ...
    4. Profit!
    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  25. Calculation Nazi... by kmmatthews · · Score: 1

    Actually, that'd be 13TB/20480, not 13TB/1024.

    so, 0.000634765625 TB's per machine... too lazy to do it properly right now :)

    --
    feh. stuff.
    1. Re:Calculation Nazi... by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

      The japanese machine is 'only' 2,048 processors. This would give an average of about 6.3GB per processor -- but SGI uses NUMA, so it's not quite that straight-forward.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  26. 13 TB * 2 by BlurredWeasel · · Score: 3, Funny

    isn't it recommended you have 2x ram as your swap? so that'd be *does difficult calculations in head* 26TB of swap. You really don't want the kernel killing off processes because you run out of ram....that'd be bad.

    1. Re:13 TB * 2 by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      Swap on an HPC is less nessecary because if your nodes EVER have to swap then you might as well stop what you're doing and go and buy more memory. If you can't fit your problem in memory you might as well not even start

      --

      Normal people worry me!
  27. Doom 4 by rrrrrrrrrrrrrob · · Score: 0

    Now all they need is a *4d* accelerated video card with 512GB memory and they'll be at the minimum hardware requirements for the (up until now) highly secretive pre-beta version of Doom 4.

    --
    -- In Soviet Russia, a Beowulf cluster of these would imagine YOU!
  28. itanic processor shipments - giving them away free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    SGI recently gave NASA a free 10240 processor itanic cluster thus accounting for a full 10% of this year's itanic shipments.

    I wonder if they gave this one away free too?

  29. Bush is back in The Seat by Teun · · Score: 2, Funny
    Yep, Colin tells me that's nucjular reesatch just off the coast of North Korea, a bad omen for the Free World
    I call for a US export ban on Memory to protect the Homeland's national security.

    Ow! Dr. Condoleezza just informed me they make Memory all by themself, lets pre-emptively nuke 'em!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Bush is back in The Seat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You laugh.

      But Japan has been kicking around the idea of developing nuclear arms for a while. With fifty thousand kg of plutonium, North Korea acting as it is, with the US not being the force for stability it was, and the administration having it's unreliability renewed, don't think they still aren't kicking the idea around.

      They could go from raw material to effective thermonuclear weapons in 6 months. All that's missing is..err was? a supercomputer to tune their own set of "nuclear crown jewels."

    2. Re:Bush is back in The Seat by Teun · · Score: 1
      I don't laugh, and I think Japan can make a nice bomb in just a few weeks if not just days.
      I think there's even a history of them announcing this capability.

      And so can most European countries.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  30. Re:Wow! by gmuslera · · Score: 1
    Imagine a cluster of those machines.... that would be called mmm Clusterzilla?

    Wonder what linux they run, probably they need the RAM for something, so Damn Small Linux would be the right distro for them.

  31. RTFA by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

    About JAERI

    Devoted to comprehensive research on nuclear energy since1956, JAERI challenges research and development in the realm of frontier science and engineering with focus on the realm of nuclear research and developments. Projects include the establishment of light-water reactor power generation technology in Japan through its endeavors including the success in Japan's first nuclear power generation and achievement of the leading and systematic research on nuclear safety. JAERI has also attained the world's foremost level of R&D in nuclear fusion and has applied radiation to the field of industry, agriculture and medicine, supported by extensive basic research to underscore the advancement of all its R&D activities. For additional information, visit www.jaeri.go.jp.

  32. Re:13 TB RAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, GNOME developers are still trying to work out how to make GNOME not crash with an out-of-memory error.

  33. Dude, he's a _troll_ by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    And you bit. So, I'm sorry to say:
    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  34. Luxury... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    pah... when I were a lad building my first machine... I had to gang nine 1Kbit chips together to make 1 Kbyte + parity... aye, they were the days... and you could cram a full chess playing program into that 1 Kbyte as well. A 4K ram expansion cost an arm and a leg... well it felt like that having to give up beer and ciggies for ages to scrape up the wonga...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  35. There's only one reason... by Microsift · · Score: 1

    a Japanese Atomic Energy Research foundation would need that kind of computing power...Godzilla!

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
  36. In Other News.... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    The Japan Nuclear research team who just acquired a 13TB RAM supercluster also gained a nuclear power plant to power this bad boy. Projections speak of a 2.5 hour battary life, although Limrick Power Plant has offered their Nuclear facility which will generate a whopping 5.5 hour battary life span.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:In Other News.... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Projections speak of a 2.5 hour battary life

      Did Sony design it?

  37. Old Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... strikes again.

    No, with Linux you don't need twice as much swap as RAM (and iirc didn't need it from the very first beginning).

    Actually, with such big swap you waste a lot of kernel-mem for the bitmaps (managing the swapspace) and so on.

    1. Re:Old Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. At least during part of the 2.4 series you had to have either no swap or more swap than memory. Check the lkml archives.

  38. Re:MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    You'll be a lot more effective if you keep your tone civil. In this forum, it's not what you say, it's how you say it that counts. The slashdot crowd, whom you hope to influence, quits listening and clicks "flaimbait" when you start calling names (except some comments directed at conservatives or ).

    Sorry for the formatting of the first reply.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  39. Re:itanic processor shipments - giving them away f by chill · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reading through both links, I fail to see where it mentions that SGI & Intel *gave* the system to NASA for free.

    The SGI press release http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_rel eases/2004/october/columbia.html mentions NASA having to put together a business case and justification for Congress and that normally means asking for funds.

    Even if they did just give it away for the press (and I dount it). When dealing with the gov't, the support contracts are separate. No one but SGI could properly support the system, so I'm willing to bet they got a fat support contract out of it.

    -Charles

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  40. Others aren't necessarily evil... by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sorry, the gloves come off when Europeans dare to judge us unfairly just because our country (and Britian) has the cojones to oppose evil in the world. Just because you guys have given up trying to change the world for the better, doesn't mean we will.

    I will not go into a discussion about the methods you use to better the world, but will share you a consideration a lot of Europeans have about the US foreign policy: have you ever considered why some of these evils in the world don't turn to Europe, only to the U.S.?

    Z

    1. Re:Others aren't necessarily evil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that the world in general turns to the U.S. is because the U.S. is actively engaged in the rest of the world. I don't think Europeans realize that they are now irrelevant in much of the worlds politics. You guys have GIVEN UP trying to change the world for the better, and its a shame.

    2. Re:Others aren't necessarily evil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because Dubya is doing such a good job at making the world better.

      Oh, wait... he is causing thousands of unnecessary deaths of innocent people, spending more money than the country can provide, and in the process ensuring that terrorists will want to attack the US for the next hundred years.

      Yeah, excellent work. Idiot Americans. Stay at home where you belong. The rest of the world doesn't want you screwing with them.

  41. 640K by masouds · · Score: 1

    And I thought 640k memory was enough for everyone. Wait a minute, was it me or...?

    --
    This .sig was intentionaly left blank.
    1. Re:640K by dagur · · Score: 1
    2. Re:640K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah he's said lots of other untruths as well.

      Do you think he would admit to it if he actually did say it?

  42. In my day we didn't even have 32k bytes. by crovira · · Score: 1

    Man this shit makes me feel old.

    I worked on a machine that had 24k (that 24,576) bytes of wire-wrapped, core memory. At the time though I new where RAM was trending. I had an Apple][ with 32 K of semi-conductor memory.

    I wrote a Pascal-like HLL compiler and a payroll system for the damn thing. In 24k bytes of memory.

    What the [expletive deleted] do you DO with all those terabytes or high-speed RAM? Lets pretend something goes KABOOM!

    I don't know wether to be wow-ed or depressed.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:In my day we didn't even have 32k bytes. by halfelven · · Score: 1

      What the [expletive deleted] do you DO with all those terabytes or high-speed RAM?

      Simulations. Everything from nuclear processes, to space shuttles re-entering atmosphere, to cars crashing into walls, to oil drilling, to... whatever. That's what the SGI systems are used for.

  43. No doom 3 joke? by Carlbunn · · Score: 1

    I can't believe any of you didn't do a single doom 3 joke yet!

    1. Re:No doom 3 joke? by lintux · · Score: 1

      I saw two of them already (okay, one of them was actually about doom4 :-)...

      I myself was more looking for "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" posts, BTW.

  44. With that much memory.. by creep · · Score: 1

    ..they should just run everything from a RAM disk.

  45. Remember the licenses? by obsid1an · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hope they didn't forget the $6.4 million startup cost and $2.2 million annual fee for linux licenses (assuming 8 CPU systems).

  46. not quite by halfelven · · Score: 1

    SGI has a layered approach to the max number of CPUs in a supercomputer.
    I guess 256 is what they call "ultrastable" - kinda like the Linux kernel 2.2.
    But the NASA monster already has 512 CPU machines, and who knows what the japanese system has.

    Apparently, SGI sells bigger systems to customers who "know what they are doing" and who work closer with SGI. If you want something that 100% no-frills, then probably the 256 CPU is the current absolutely stable limit.

  47. Small correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the domain this system is to be used for (3d modeling of nuclear blasts)

    I read on Ain't It Cool, that this is actually going to be used for the production of a live action version of Urutsokidoji: Legend Of The Overfiend. Knowles said he could only describe what he saw of the preproduction and concept art as "eye popping."

  48. wrong by halfelven · · Score: 1

    0.000634765625 TB's per machine

    Then you're assuming each machine has just one CPU. That is not correct, and it's the biggest difference between SGI supercomputers and commodity clusters.
    An SGI system has hundreds, if not thousands of CPUs per machine.

  49. Well I wouldn't have put it like that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But yeah, it should be enough to display all my porn at once provided they can find a big enough monitor....

  50. yes by halfelven · · Score: 1

    is this thing faster than the Big Mac?

    Yes it is.

    The Big Mac is just like any other commodity cluster. It's just a bunch of machines tied together in a closed network.
    The SGI supercomputers keep all CPUs in a single machine, sharing all the memory over extremely fast, proprietary interconnects. In such a system, the CPUs talk to each other as fast (if not faster) as the CPUs in a dual-CPU server.

    Assuming the total CPU power is the same, the SGI supercomputer is faster than any cluster (Big Mac included) for all problems that are not 100% parallelizable. For those few problems whose algorhitms are 100% parallel, a SGI system and a cluster will probably be equal.

  51. Almost... by JohnPerkins · · Score: 1

    ...but not quite enough to hold my...friends'...entire pr0n collection in memory.

  52. Re:MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " our country (and Britian) has the cojones to oppose evil "

    Oh, the same evil *you* SELL weapons to??? That's a new definition of 'oppose', I guess.

  53. Re:Nothing to see here. by halfelven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These rather wasteful supercomputers are getting less and less impressive.
    You know what would be impressive? Published results!


    The results are already "published", just not explicitly.

    The gas price is twice smaller than it could be? That's because supercomputers such as those made by SGI are used to do simulations related to oil drilling and stuff.

    The car prices are smaller than they could be? That's because car crashes are simulated on supercomputers instead of performed actually during the design process.

    Nuclear weapons are more powerful than they could be? That's because... oh, wait. :-)

  54. yeah, except it's not a cluster by halfelven · · Score: 1

    It's a single-OS-image supercomputer.

    But yeah, nice joke. :-)

  55. Gotta wonder by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    if this will help safety out at the power plants. Japan has a (comparatively) horrible safety record when it comes to nuclear power compared to Western Europe and the US....

  56. I'll get it out of the way by stinerman · · Score: 1

    ... enough to run Longhorn ... ... compile Gentoo ... ... Beowulf cluster ...

  57. Ya but can it run After Dark by Martok7 · · Score: 1

    I hear they will be using it to test the new release of After Dark. It will be running it 24 hours a day.

    --
    I never liked you
  58. The Virginia and the MACH 5 Army Clusters Use OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The super-clusters built around Apple's Xserve (17 and 25 TFLOPS) both use OS X...the same one as on the desktop. Yes, they do turn off the GUI for the cluster nodes but that is it.

  59. Re:MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION by syylk · · Score: 1

    Europeans dare to judge us unfairly just because our country (and Britian) has the cojones to oppose evil in the world.

    Noblesse oblige me to correct you, sir.

    We dare to judge you just because (the government of) your country and (the government of) Britain are the cojones who claim to oppose "evil" in the world.

  60. CPUs? by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 1

    How can one actually have many Central Processing Units?
    I mean, I know there are multiprocessor computers nowdays, but what is then central there?!

  61. Sure ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    it sounds good, but can it run the Duke Nukem 3D Atomic Edition in 800x600 VESA mode?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  62. Re:Wow! by Mark-Allen · · Score: 1

    Having been born in Japan, I believe a Beowulf cluster in Japan is more commonly called a "godzilla cluster". And having said that I'm wondering what that amount of money would cost in toto? Oh, BTW, this machine is really going to be used to create the next Gozilla movie, only animated. Sig? Ok. Sig.

    --
    If you can stay calm, while all around you is chaos... then you probably haven't completely understood the question.
  63. Re:so ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cray XT3: up to 239TB RAM

    http://www.cray.com/products/xt3/configurations. ht ml

  64. 2048?? by nycsubway · · Score: 1


    2048 is nothing... They've got everyone beat with 10,240 processors!

  65. Maybe the British government needs this... by Seventh+Magpie · · Score: 1

    http://christiancarling.com/snoopy.htmlThis is what the british government needs

    1. Re:Maybe the British government needs this... by Seventh+Magpie · · Score: 1

      strange how this got into this thread. belongs in the "Beagle3" thread. oh well. messed up the HTML anyway....

  66. and the Yakuza... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...have no influence in Japanese big business or government...or so Jon Lovitz told me.

    Yes, I find it interesting also.

  67. Re:MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Collaterally damaged Iraqis would be so happy about this better world. If they still were around, that is.

  68. Re:itanic processor shipments - giving them away f by RageEX · · Score: 1

    NASA's Columbia system cost $45M. SGI charges money for their products. This Japanese system is probably on the order of $10M.