Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Building The MareNostrum COTS Supercomputer

Posted by timothy on from the available-at-every-pharmacy dept.

karvind writes "IBM Power Architecture Community Newsletter has a story about making a supercomputer (Number 4 on top 500 list) from easily available components (like BladeCenter and TotalStorage servers, 970FX PowerPC processors, and Linux 2.6). A joint venture between IBM and the Spanish government, it is named MareNostrum: the Latin term meaning 'our sea.' Peaking at 40 TFlops, the beast consists of 2,282 IBM eServer BladeCenter JS20 blade servers housed in 163 BladeCenter chassis, 4,564 64-bit IBM PowerPC 970FX processors, and 140 TB of IBM TotalStorage DS4100 storage servers."

187 comments

  1. specifically by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mare Nostrum refers to the Mediterranean Sea.

    1. Re:specifically by Predflux · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Well, Mare Nostrum means "our sea". And which was the Roman's sea? The Mediterranean Sea.

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

      That is in old Europe. FB!

    3. Re:specifically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MareNostrum is latin, mare = sea and nostrum = our, has nothing to do with the mediterranean sea nor with spain ;)

    4. Re:specifically by marcovje · · Score: 1

      The Roman empire controlled all shores of the Mediterranean, either directly or as Protectorat (like e.g. Israel) and Romans refered to the Mediterranean like that.

    5. Re:specifically by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      And people (those educated in Latin) in protectorats refered to their seas (which are parts of the Mediterranean) like that as well.

  2. Mare Nostrum by nebaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mare Nostrum literally means "our sea". It is what the Romans called the Mediterranean Sea during the Empire. As you can see, it was an apt name.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Mare Nostrum by pinky99 · · Score: 1

      yep, it's just Latin for Mediterrenian Sea.

    2. Re:Mare Nostrum by Predflux · · Score: 0

      Damnit. It's Latin for Our Sea.

      But Our Sea is the Mediterrenian.

    3. Re:Mare Nostrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did they call it during the Republic?

    4. Re:Mare Nostrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sea are you guys talking about?

    5. Re:Mare Nostrum by legrimpeur · · Score: 1

      and actually they called it like this since at their acme they owned almost the totality of its coast...

    6. Re:Mare Nostrum by flanderz · · Score: 0

      +1 funny :)

    7. Re:Mare Nostrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as it's not Goat Sea, we're ok.

    8. Re:Mare Nostrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mare Nostrum literally means "our sea".

      I don't care what it means, it still sounds like Big Nose.

    9. Re:Mare Nostrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, it's just Latin for Mediterrenian Sea.

      LOL.

      "Mare Mediterraneum" is Latin for Mediterranean Sea.

      Mediterraneus = Media + Terra = Middle of the land.

    10. Re:Mare Nostrum by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      No, no, It's "Our's, See!"

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    11. Re:Mare Nostrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mare Nostrum is the name of a famous silent movie directed by Rex Ingram.

  3. Humans are so behind the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am an African Grey parrot, and I can tell you that while you humans are celebrating this achievement, I and my fellow Greys are laughing at you. Supercomputers are old news to us; in fact, one of my friends solved the halting problem while taking a crap the other day. Seriously, people, we like you 'cause you feed us, but leave this kind of stuff to us.

    (I tried to register an account but /. thought my user name was too long)

    1. Re:Humans are so behind the curve by fred911 · · Score: 1

      Besides we also have powerless routing! We even told you years ago (see RFC1149 http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers").

      So celebrate all ya want, bipod just don't run out of my crackers!

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Humans are so behind the curve by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny
      (I tried to register an account but /. thought my user name was too long)

      What kind of troll would parrot back such a hackneyed old line.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Humans are so behind the curve by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you an African or European par... oh crap, nevermind.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  4. It's all fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    but does it run Linux? Oh crap, never mind.

    1. Re:It's all fine by fedor · · Score: 0

      With such a powerful machine you can even run Websphere!

      --
      :wq!
    2. Re:It's all fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is: Yes, but, can it run DOOM 3?

    3. Re:It's all fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I chat with my buddies on AIM with it?

  5. Why ohh why by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    Couldn't they just "me too" it and run xserves >_

    Now im going to cry!

    1. Re:Why ohh why by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Well since it was IBM, they do get a volume discount on buying IBM equipment.

      Besides, last I checked (back when I bought mine) there is a 6-8 week waiting list for Xserves. (Confessions of an Apple Fan Boy.)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Why ohh why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, last I checked (back when I bought mine) there is a 6-8 week waiting list for Xserves.

      Nope, the Apple Store Spain says that XServe Cluster Nodes are shiping within 24 hours.

    3. Re:Why ohh why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they just "me too" it and run xserves >_

      No. They needed a high performance 64bit OS.

    4. Re:Why ohh why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So run linux on the XServes. You can even buy XServes with linux pre-installed and supported through YellowDog.

  6. Top 500? by Ubi_NL · · Score: 3, Funny

    (Number 4 on top 500 list)
    ...while being Number 6 on top 300 list, and Number 65 on top 2000 list.

    This is like those CDs that have 'best of the Top40' and not contain the top10 list of that

    --

    If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
  7. and in 32 years by headlessspider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and after about 16 (or 32) years we'll have that power in our desktops...

    --
    -- and if life has failed you leave the cross you're nailed to
    1. Re:and in 32 years by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      No, at this rate we will have 4.0 GHz P4s and Duke Nukem Forever on our PCs in 32 years.

    2. Re:and in 32 years by headlessspider · · Score: 1

      lol! good one... 8D

      --
      -- and if life has failed you leave the cross you're nailed to
  8. Beowulf cluster? by moz25 · · Score: 1

    Isn't this basically a Beowulf-type cluster with just many many nodes? Exactly where lies the innovation? The fact that a cluster of many processors have a lot of computing power is not exactly new.

    --
    see a Text Widget
    1. Re:Beowulf cluster? by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 2, Informative

      It probably has to do more with the fact that as you increase the number of nodes, your increase in performance decreases on a per node basis. To get that many nodes working together takes an incredible amount of resource management. It makes you wonder where the limit currently is for if it is worth adding an extra node, or if the resource management requirements negate the extra nodes computational power.

    2. Re:Beowulf cluster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM's blades are totally awesome. You can just take one, shove it into the rack, and it's computing.

    3. Re:Beowulf cluster? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of how 3Dfx went down... They wanted faster cards, but rather than make something innovative, they just made the cards bigger so they could fit more stuff on them. The things were huge, it cracked me up when I saw them on ZDTV (before it was called TechTV). This seems like what IBM is trying to do here.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    4. Re:Beowulf cluster? by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah but it's made from "easily available components." Hmmm, I think I've seen that before, at the University of Virginia. Don't G5s qualify as "easily available"?

    5. Re:Beowulf cluster? by photon317 · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's really hard to scale these kinds of clusters beyond certain limits, once you start getting into all the practical details.

      There's the basic facilities stuff: fitting enough power and cooling density into a single datacenter to cram that many nodes within a reasonable distance of each other for cabling purposes.

      There's the network architecture. A single switched network between your nodes doesn't get you all that far. Depending on the characteristics of the expected workload and all that jazz, there are many different technologies and topologies to choose from.

      Don't forget storage and data moving in general. The data has to reach the processors somehow, and 2000 nodes mounting an nfs share from some central box just isn't going to work at all...

      Then there's node management: installing/imaging, booting, detecting failures, recovering with minimal human intervention (automatic re-imaging), monitoring it all, etc. You could skip this step and hire a truckload of junior sysadmins and have them running all over the place with CDs and keyboards and monitors, but that doesn't really scale to thousands of densely packed nodes does it?

      As another reply states - if you don't find the right solution to all of these problems, you face scalability limits. With a given overall design, there's going to be a maximal node count, beyond which scaling is infeasible or futile. It really is hard stuff.

      Luckily the opensource world is making headway on some of the software-side manageability issues. For an example check out rocks.npaci.edu.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    6. Re:Beowulf cluster? by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      > Don't G5s qualify as "easily available"?

      Not at the time.

      The cluster was announced as G5 but they used G4 for the first incarnation and later performed a system-wide upgrade (or two, who knows .
      http://www.thinksecret.com/news/virginiatech3.h tml

      Note how Apple's site (http://www.apple.com/education/science/profiles/v atech/) talks about 2.0GHz, and both 2.3GHz and later 2.5GHz processors were used...
      And this* "These systems were custom built by Apple for Virginia Tech utilizing dual 2.3GHz G5 processors. This configuration was developed specifically for Virginia Tech, and Apple currently has no plans to offer 2.3GHz processors in the Xserve G5 product line.".
      * http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?itemno=395

      Not exactly easily available.

    7. Re:Beowulf cluster? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It makes you wonder where the limit currently is for if it is worth adding an extra node,
      If you're the vendor, there is no limit. Every extra node == $$$

      If you're the buyer, there is no limit. Every extra node == _MORE_STATUS_

      If you're the guys writing code for it, there is no limit. Every extra node == job security++

      If you're the people administering this, there is no limit. Every extra node == bigger budget next year

      See, citizen? Size does count.

    8. Re:Beowulf cluster? by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Eh, not really. In a lot of the algorithms, there comes a point when adding nodes will make it SLOWER because the increases in communication time are greater than the decrease in computation time. Now granted this does depend a lot on a) what you are doing with the machine and b) the machines themselves, but just thinking that people who make these things love to just pile on hardware is a bit naive....

      --
      Monstar L
    9. Re:Beowulf cluster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      VT got Dual 2.3Ghz XServes a couple of months before they were publically released, but they are publically available now.
      You can go to the online Apple store and order some if you like, it says they'll ship it on the same business day.

    10. Re:Beowulf cluster? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Wrong, the origional cluster used G5's, they just used dual G5 towers. Later the cluster was upgraded to dual G5 Xserver's running faster than publicly available G5 chips (as you noted).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Beowulf cluster? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ about inherent scalability limits. Perhaps relative to a given application, such as one which requires random routing superlinear in node count, but for the broad range of applications,
      for which logarithmic cross-section bandwidth growth is sufficient, there are well-understood architectures that scale without bound.

      This stuff was cute and clever in 1992, but these days it's a pretty well-trodden path.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    12. Re:Beowulf cluster? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Insightful?!?

      You should be lucky I chose to berate you for mistaking Thomas Jefferson Community College for Virginia Tech instead of moding you down.

      Aside from that gaff, however, you are essentially correct. The VT cluster may as well have been OTS, even if the units were built especially for VT. I think most of the "custom" part of the custom G5s was simple packaging and the fact that VT got the first run of chips. (don't quote me on that one...I just know what I've read in the newsletters).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    13. Re:Beowulf cluster? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > just thinking that people who make these things love to just pile on hardware is a bit naive

      Or a bit brazenly honest. There's no limit to the benefit from scaling your cluster up, since

      (1) there are always applications that run better on more cpus, even with a crappy network design.

      (2) there are always better network designs that improve the remaining applications.

      (3) there is always the option of partitioning it into mutiple sub-clusters if you're too dumb for (1) and too cheap for (2).

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    14. Re:Beowulf cluster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! I'm gonna order 1100 of them :)

    15. Re:Beowulf cluster? by photon317 · · Score: 1


      At least in the world I play in, logarithmic cross-section bandwidth is nowhere near sufficient. The interconnect design and technology is still very critical for us, as is storage.

      --
      11*43+456^2
  9. Off who's shelf? by identity0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love the first line in the article, which ends, "is constructed of such totally off-the-shelf parts as IBM BladeCenter JS20 servers, 64-bit 970FX PowerPC processors, TotalStorage DS4100 storage servers, and Linux 2.6. This is its story."

    Right, like I regularly go to Fry's to stock up on some DS4100s and Bladecenters. I'd love to be the geek for whom that stuff is "off-the-shelf". Can you even buy bare PPC CPUs and mobos?

    1. Re:Off who's shelf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IBMs shelf. The stuff in itself is nothing particular, just ordinary computer stuff sold by IBM to hundreds or thousands of other customers.

      Just because you "can't" buy the stuff in pieces (IBM will probably gladly sell you the stuff as spare parts, if you prefer to assemble it yourself) doesn't mean it's not off the shelf.

    2. Re:Off who's shelf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Can you even buy bare PPC CPUs and mobos?

      Not 970-based yet, but anyway:
      Pegasos.
      Terons (which are also marketed, by raping the corpse of the Amiga, to a bunch of clueless zealots as "AmigaOnes". The CX and PX models are discontinued due to hardware flaws, the jury is still out on the newer Mini model).

    3. Re:Off who's shelf? by lachlan76 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need your own fab, and you don't need to rent one. If you don't need custom components, it's off-the-shelf.

    4. Re:Off who's shelf? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      "off the shelf" means the technolgy has already been developed, not that any dork can get one at the local CompUSA. This generally means lower cost since you don't have to pay for custom chip development.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Off who's shelf? by PayPaI · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Pegasos.
      $775 for a G4 (1GHz?) on an ATX board with specs comparable or less than a $112 Athlon64 motherboard.
      Terons
      $3,900(!) for a board with a 750FX processor (unknown speed) and technology comparable to what was going out of style 4 years ago. (USB1.1? 10/100 Ethernet? PC133 Memory???)
      I'm not holding my breath for these. Call me when I can get a decent motherboard with a 1GHz processor for less than $200.
    6. Re:Off who's shelf? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Thank you.

      Another example would be ordering a Dell. While there are Dells that are available retail, most of them can only be gotten directly from the manufacturer. The same is true for High-end Macintoshes, most mainframes, and a good deal of tape library market.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    7. Re:Off who's shelf? by gardyloo · · Score: 1


      Right, like I regularly go to Fry's to stock up on some DS4100s and Bladecenters. I'd love to be the geek for whom that stuff is "off-the-shelf". Can you even buy bare PPC CPUs and mobos?

      Let alone Linux 2.6! Where the hell does one find that?!?

    8. Re:Off who's shelf? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      When you but this many at once, you can get it any way you want. Painted bright pink, some bizarre packaging, whatever.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    9. Re:Off who's shelf? by blamanj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the info is right here for quantity 1, and there a button that says "Configure and order a JS20," so if you're willing to order a few thousand of them (they're about $4K/ea with 2.5G RAM), you can build your own.

      Actually, that's a reasonable price, considering it's IBM, who aren't usually considered a bargain brand.

    10. Re:Off who's shelf? by clem.dickey · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'll need a chassis for that blade, of course. Luckily, they're half-off through the end of March. Buy the entry model and get change back from your $1000 bill. Oh, and you'll want a rack to put the chassis in. But at $1489 for the rack, check the local surplus store first. And while you there pick up a display, mouse and keyboard.

    11. Re:Off who's shelf? by jurv!s · · Score: 1
      You seem to know a good amount about IBM products. Can you elaborate how this compares to an xServe? Let me disclose that I just ordered a dual 2.3GHz xServe cluster node with an education discount at $2500 + ~$1000 for 4GB of 3rd party RAM. Perusing your link I noticed the following differences:

      slightly faster proc in the xServe
      PC2700 ECC in the JS20 vs PC3200 ECC in the xServe
      4 DIMM slots in the JS20 vs 8 slots...
      2 HD bays vs 1 HD bay
      some failover mumbo jumbo vs less failover mumbo jumbo

      What else does the JS20 bring to the table that I haven't picked up? Feel free to discuss space, heat, power and hardware reliablity intangibles. I'm not very familiar with blades- please don't think I'm trolling.

      --
      sigs are for fools and trolls. no signature is *always* appropriate. you should turn them off in your preferences.
    12. Re:Off who's shelf? by blamanj · · Score: 1

      You seem to know a good amount about IBM products.

      Actually, I don't. I just clicked a link in one of the IBM articles about the cluster and got to the JS20 page.

      I do know that blades are designed to be small. The enclosure is 7U and you can put 10 blades in it, because they're mounted vertically. In the same space you can only fit 7 XServes, which are mounted horizontally.

      I don't know details about heat, etc. I think the JS20 defaults to no HD, as well, whereas the Xserve comes with 80G minimum.

  10. Cue the lame gags... by Sime208 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...about it still not being sufficient to catalogue ones porn collection.

    1. Re:Cue the lame gags... by mrjb · · Score: 0

      Okay. It's still not sufficient to catalogue my porn collection.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  11. War in the age of information warfare by flopsy+mopsalon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I happened to look at the Top 500 supercomputers site and I couln't help noticing out of the top 5 supercomputers almost half are in non-US countries like Spain and Japan. This is not to beat some kind of patriot act drum. Instead, it got me to thinking.

    With supercomputing powers now avaible to any country or group with a few readily available components, it is only a matter of time before these supercomputing powers may be used by a rogue state or radical group to cause havoc among electronic communications using methods like denial of service attacks, spyware, and crapflooding message boards.

    I think it is high time the nations of the world put their heads together and addressed this issue. For example, I don't think the US Federal Government even has any cabinet-level position like Secretary of Information Technology or something like that. When are they going to get with the times? It will probably take another terrorist attack or something.

    1. Re:War in the age of information warfare by mikelin.ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh oh.
      Someone's been watching too much 24.

    2. Re:War in the age of information warfare by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Yeah especially with all the bandwith that north korea has, im sure they will launch a very succesful DoS attack on Whitehouse.com as the north koreans are introduced to pr0n for the first time!

    3. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      and crapflooding message boards

      Yep, that's gonna cause mass mayhem and planet-wide panic. Them terrorists, messing up with our patriotic message boards! ... or something

      Kid, when you grow up you'll relize there are some differences between a Beowulf cluster and a botnet of crappy PCs.

    4. Re:War in the age of information warfare by grozzie2 · · Score: 5, Informative
      These things are already being used by rogue states. The us military has a bunch of them dedicated to modelling nuclear events.

      With regard to denial of service attacks, there's a cluebox over in the corner, you need to go grab a couple out of the box. DOS attacks dont require a big computer, they require massive bandwidth with massive routing diversity available. The actual computer power required borders on insignificant. A supercomputer like this is useless for that kind of thing, by necessity, it will have an internal networking and communications environment, and likely only a relatively low speed interconnect to external networks.

      But look on the bright side, the knee jerk 'terrorist behind every lamp post' reaction is just what the american government has been trying to instill in the population for the last few years. Your post here shows, it's been an effective campaign, money successfully spent, and the objective achieved. It's become the 'trendy' response to just about everything these days.

    5. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      DOS's, spyware and crapflooding don't require supercomputing power. Now, nuclear simulations and the like- that's probably more worrisome. You very appropriately linked to NK, the state most likely at this point to be running such simulations. Although, they might just test their bomb for real, as a show of power. Whatever the case, I don't think any rogue states give a flying fuck about crapflooding /.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    6. Re:War in the age of information warfare by winchester · · Score: 1
      With supercomputing powers now avaible to any country or group with a few readily available components, it is only a matter of time before these supercomputing powers may be used by a rogue state or radical group to cause havoc among electronic communications using methods like denial of service attacks, spyware, and crapflooding message boards.
      You are SO informed! That is exactly what you can NOT use a supercomputer for! Supercomputers are used for scientific calculations. Sure you can use them to calculate the best rocket trajectory or how many people will be killed by a nuclear blast, but to be honest, I would be very surprised to see an Al-Qaeda super computing center, just because having and using it makes no sense to them. On the other hand, an Al-Qaeda Information Warfare center sounds quite possible, but you don't need a supercomputer for that.

      As for being concerned about rogue states getting their hands on a supercomputer... that is what the US export regulations are for!

    7. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, don't say stupid the only ones that are really dangerous in the USA. I'm Spanish from Spain, not as many of Americam thing that we are from Latin America. We live in Europe and we're part of the European Comunnity that have a stronger economical position in from the USA. When you start thinking that you're part of the world and the world is not part of the USA, you'll scale one position. Spain was one time, the owner of the world, including most of the USA, we sold Florida and other areas to the USA not so far away.

      And remember you did a war agains us to get Cuba, but we left there Fidel.

    8. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, is this a troll? Anyway, why use a supercomputer for something trivial as a DOS attack when you could buy 6 hours of DDOS from a botnet for a few $100 on irc?

    9. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Elementalor · · Score: 1

      I can't believe ours is smaller than the Japanese...

    10. Re:War in the age of information warfare by hdparm · · Score: 1
      crapflooding message boards.

      This got me into thinking, too - with posts like this, rogue states will quickly realise they can save some of that computing power just by leaving slashdot alone.

    11. Re:War in the age of information warfare by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First and formost, that is NSA's directive; That is to secure our systems and networks.

      Next there have been several CS security czars, but all have quit because they have not had the response from the admin that they thought was needed.

      Will it take a terrorist hit to get us really thinking about all this? Nope. In spite of 9-11, we are still not really any more "secure" than we were on 9-10.

      What it will take is lawsuits against companies. A good one that is going through now, is the one where a guy got ripped off for 90k using BOA. Now it was not BOA fault(they had a secured server). But they allowed that guy to use his system (he seems to forget the use at your own risk think in the EULA that he agreed to). Most likely, BOA will lose money no this. Then they will re-think through there strategy. It will probably be to check the client and browser and see if it is known high risk (hummmm, which OS and browser are very high risk, hummm). At which time, they will warn the user and perhaps suggest another browser (and maybe an OS or 2). At the point that this costs institiions money is when they will take it serious.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      it is only a matter of time before these supercomputing powers may be used by a rogue state (for) crapflooding message boards.

      Look, North Korean secret agent guy, just because you have a supercomputer doesn't mean you need to go posting this ton of crap to Slashdot thanks very much.

      That's almost as ludicrous as Intel's faster CPU to surf the web faster theory. The trolls on slashdot are ample proof that you need nothing more than a low end pentium and lots of time to keep the drivel flowing all day.

      --
      Beep beep.
    13. Re:War in the age of information warfare by karakal · · Score: 1

      > As for being concerned about rogue states getting their hands on a supercomputer... that is what the US export regulations are for! I just have to say: There are more things between earth and sky than the Americans can think off.

    14. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Keep in mind that these are Top500 KNOWN supercomputers.

      It's quite possible that many more computers that exist but are operating under classified conditions. For instance I would be suprised if the NSA had something for breaking crypto that rivaled some of the machines in the top 50 or so super computers, but it's not something that would appear on this list. This is for boasting rights only, if a place chooses not to publicize their computer, it won't end up on the list.

      American computers pretty much dominate. Some like the Spainish one are built by American companies (like IBM), but just happen to be installed in foreign places.

      Now the NEC Earth Simulator is a BIG exception. It dominated the top 500 for a considurable period of time and is completely japanese built, designed and owned. It is a huge technological acheivement and the pinnacle of technology for it's day. It's hard to relate to how significant it was. It is the top of the line when it comes to old-school massively parrallel supercomputers, blew American supercomputers out of the water.

      But along came Linux clusters (which in many ways is competely unsuitable for some of the things that Earth Simulator can do) and now Blue Gene. Which can possibly do twice the work as Earth Simulator, but consumes a fraction of the power and space needed to house these types of computers.

    15. Re:War in the age of information warfare by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Please don't let there be a Secretary of Information Technology. The creation of cabinet level posts is like 1984. We create a Homeland Security Secretary to instill fear and insecurity with his "Terror Alert" system. We have a Secretary of Defense who invades other countries. Our Secretary of Education is wrapped up in testing to the point of interfering with actual education.

      I shudder to think of what a "Secretary of Information Technology" would be. In my tinfoil sheilded skull I imagine a jack boot on the throat of the internet.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    16. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Retric · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of stuff you can find out about the NSA but there is no way to know just how much computing power they have, but as for basic idea. They have around 50 ACRES or more of supercomputing floor space. They run there own fab creating custom CPU's. And they dropped off a 200CPU system to their museum because it got 3 years old and so was not worth keeping... So being conservative lets say they have around 10 200CPU systems per acre and 50 acres so that's around 100,000CPU's. So my guess is they have around the same computing power as the published list of the top 500. (As in within 1 order of magnitude.)

    17. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Jester99 · · Score: 1

      But look on the bright side, the knee jerk 'terrorist behind every lamp post' reaction is just what the american government has been trying to instill in the population for the last few years.

      While the parent poster may have gotten the details wrong (you are correct in that massive DOS requires distribution and bandwidth, not computing power), the manner in which you dismissively respond was unwarrented.

      Yes, the US Government has certainly been doing a lot to enforce the idea that Terrorists are Out There. But the technological suggestions presented by the parent have more than a grain of truth to them.

      Consider other scenarios that have a bit more rationale:

      The US and its allies may have spies working covertly in foreign rogue nations. Presumably, any intelligence or orders passed between them may involve internet-routed signals. A supercomputer would allow rogue states to brute-force crack the key and compromise the agent's mission. (The Chinese government has already shown it is capable of filtering and monitoring a huge amount of its routed traffic at its national border; Other countries may be able to do the same thing.)

      Perhaps the operatives use satellite phones, radios, or other mechanisms to circumvent the hard-wired Internet in a country, you say? But radio waves can still be intercepted, given in-air receivers. Things like scrambling, frequency shifting, encryption, all make it harder. But powerful computers also make it easier.

      We are seeing several rogue nations today obtain the processed nuclear fuels required for making nuclear weaponry. Fortunately, without an advanced knowledge of physics, (The US had some of the best men in the world working on the Manhattan project), the design of the device itself will be a sub-optimal yield. A computer capable of running massive simulation could determine more effective charge shapes or designs for higher yield nuclear weapons.

      Similarly, these nuclear weapons are useless unless they can be delivered to their targets. High-powered computing does make it more attainable to design long-range missile delivery systems capable of reaching Europe or the USA from a rogue state.

      On a slightly different, but related note, advances in biology these days are becoming more heavily dependant on computer technology. Protein modeling and determining how proteins fold requires weeks of simulation by powerful computers. Faster computers may help enable biologists in rogue states to design more effective chemical or germ warfare.

      So, yes, thinks like creating spyware and crapflooding can't be done with a supercomputer any more effectively than with a Wintel box. The parent's post was probably a troll if it suggested things like that.

      This having been said, there do exist real scenarios where supercomputing power will aid terrorism. Obviously, we can't prevent supercomputers from getting into terrorist hands.

      But to merely dismiss this as a possible tool of the terrorists is to demonstrate the same sort of arrogance as in the pre-9/11 days. "The terrorists cannot intercept our transmissions! We use encryption!" vs "The terrorists cannot blow up the WTC! We have airport security!"

      It's certainly something the government and those charged with national defense should take into account when drawing up a list of possible scenarios.

    18. Re:War in the age of information warfare by bnenning · · Score: 1

      The US and its allies may have spies working covertly in foreign rogue nations. Presumably, any intelligence or orders passed between them may involve internet-routed signals. A supercomputer would allow rogue states to brute-force crack the key and compromise the agent's mission.

      Not if the algorithm is good. Time and energy for a brute-force crack increases exponentially with key length; the energy output of the Sun over its entire lifetime isn't enough to even count to 2^256, let alone crack a 256-bit key (see Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography).

      "The terrorists cannot intercept our transmissions! We use encryption!" vs "The terrorists cannot blow up the WTC! We have airport security!"

      True. Although I've always thought airport security was a joke, both pre and post 9/11.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    19. Re:War in the age of information warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but look closer to that list, 4 of the first 5 were build by US companies and US products (IBM, Intel, SGI...), only the Japanese one was built by a foreing country...

      And, because I'm spanish, I can say that having the 4th largest supercomputer 500Km far (and a node at my university) is not a great thing when the technology is from US. It's like what you feel notincing that only 3 of 5 supercomputers are in US.

      But I hope I get a time slot in that machine and I manage to install Doom 3 and play it the way it means to be played!

  12. I have an account now! *squawk* by African+Grey · · Score: 1

    Of course, the *squawk* was only inserted to conform with human stereotypes about parrot speech. We're actually much more sophisticated than that; in fact you have probably heard one of us talking and not realized it was a bird!

  13. timely and focused PR by bandix · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is all about timely and focused execution. The speed at which this project was realized is important. Consider: from the initial concept in late December of 2003 to assembling the computer in Madrid took less than a year. Normally, this kind of supercomputer projects take years.

    Lame!

    SGI had NASA AMES' Columbia online in 120 days, and landed #2 on the Top500.

    --
    Brandon D. Valentine
    1. Re:timely and focused PR by jokumuu · · Score: 1
      "This is all about timely and focused execution"

      SGI had NASA AMES' Columbia online in 120 days, and landed #2 on the Top500.

      I am sure that what they mean is that every phase of the project was according to schedule, specifically including the PR efforts.

    2. Re:timely and focused PR by mambru · · Score: 1

      It's located in Barcelona.

    3. Re:timely and focused PR by Caktus · · Score: 1

      This is an all in one reply to several posts.
      First of all, the comments in this post are my personal comments and not the comments of the parts involved (IBM, BSC and the Spanish Government).
      The final destination has always been Barcelona, but they put the machine together in Madrid because the final building was not ready in time for running the Top500 benchmark. Even then, they didn't have enough time to set up all the nodes and then the result in Top500 had to be done with less nodes than the fully assembled machine. I believe that SGI had also submitted data the machine before it was fully assembled, but sent the results of their full machine after the deadline and got the result accepted. When the final building was ready in Barcelona, they moved the machine to its final destination.
      Refering to the limits of scalability, I think that having such a configuration presents new challenges for the computer science researchers that work for the center. Having such a machine at our dispossal will provide us with a very interesting oportunity to improve the scalability of our parallelization techniques.
      Regarding the memory configuration, the login nodes have 4GB of RAM, and I believe the rest of the nodes have the same configuration.
      An finally, the file systems are currently mounted using NFS, but it is expected that soon they will change to GPFS.

  14. Off the shelf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    w00t
    yes now I can make my own amazing super computer made of... BOOKS!

    1. Re:Off the shelf by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Well, if one of those books is Beowulf... ummm, never mind.

  15. Sounds like by jim_v2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Peaking at 40 TFlops, the beast consists of 2,282 IBM eServer BladeCenter JS20 blade servers housed in 163 BladeCenter chassis, 4,564 64-bit IBM PowerPC 970FX processors, and 140 TB of IBM TotalStorage DS4100 storage servers.

    Sounds like the specs of Microsoft's Xbox 3...

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    1. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While still weighing less than XBox 1!

    2. Re:Sounds like by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      ... Which will also run Linux 2.6 at some stage, no doubt.

      --
      Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
    3. Re:Sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the specs of Microsoft's Xbox 3... Judging by the size of the first Xbox, those specs are only for the CONTROLLER!

    4. Re:Sounds like by gael · · Score: 1

      No no, these are the minimal requirements for MS Longhorn!

  16. WHAT'S WITH THE FREE ADVERTISING? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but why are we giving IBM free press again? For god's sake, the very first sentence of the freaking article is utter rubbish:

    The MareNostrum supercomputer at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center, ranked number four in the world in speed in November 2004, is constructed of such totally off-the-shelf parts as IBM BladeCenter JS20 servers, 64-bit 970FX PowerPC processors, TotalStorage DS4100 storage servers, and Linux 2.6

    That's it - the first sentence of the article, if you exclude the title, the credits and the date, that is.

    And we can already call advertising bullshit. I'm sorry, but how is the MareNostrum system made of any more "totally off-the-shelf" parts than the number two system on the Top500, NASA's very own Columbia? In fact, the 64-bit 970FX PowerPC processor is NOT an off-the-shelf part: unlike the Itanium 2 CPUs in Columbia, you can NOT buy such CPUs individually (for good reason: unlike the Itanium CPUs in Columbia, MareNostrum's CPUs are not socketed but soldered to the JS20 system board, so there goes upgradeability...)

    Seriously though, why should we give a rat's ass about MareNostrum? Columbia is faster, more efficient, really is made from off-the-shelf parts and also runs Linux.

    What's that? Oh, IBM are a good company and SGI aren't? For fuck's sake, SGI are better friends of Linux than IBM are. What did IBM do for linux? Nothing compared to SGI. IBM ported JFS, a crappy journaling filesystem, oh and they ported it to their own POWER/PowerPC architecture systems. W00p!

    SGI:

    - Gave Linux XFS, one of the fastest filesystems around, with _many_ advanced features (just look in your kernel config sometime)

    - Scaled Linux beyond 64 CPUs for the first time (and indeed, they hold the record at 2,048CPUs): they fixed a _ton_ of scalability problems, and continue to do this on a daily basis (just look at this week's archive of the linux-ia64 mailing list to see what I mean!)

    - Open sourced their Itanium compiler

    - Created OpenGL (notice carefully the Open in OpenGL. You can bet your bottom dollar if IBM created a funky new graphics API it would _only_ work on PowerPC machines with IBM video hardware!)

    Yada yada. All I'm trying to say is there are other companies out there who have really taken Linux to heart and have made open source development in their best interest, not just IBM. SGI is just one example, there are many others.

  17. Imagine... by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... a beowulf cluster of these.

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

      The fact that this comment was rated redundant is beyond hilarious.

      Well, to me, anyway.

    2. Re:Imagine... by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 1

      Damn. You beat me to it. But you forget the "...oh, wait. Never mind." bit at the end.

      --Ender

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
    3. Re:Imagine... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Definately an amusingly appropriate mod. Perhaps a rare case where redundant should net the moderator and poster positive karma (in a tiny amount however)

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    4. Re:Imagine... by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'll notice the "redundant" moderation, which is a perfect fit, given the context :-)

  18. Re:IBM eServers? by xose · · Score: 1, Informative

    This was a political decision, HP already complained because there was not a sellers competition.

    Last government of Jose Maria Ansar aka 'Estamos trabajado en elloooooo' brought this computer to try get the ITER.

    PD: Africa comienza en los Pirineos.

  19. Who cares about easily available? by tktk · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ...from easily available components...

    Screw easily available. Anyone with a budget to buy 2,282 servers and 4,564 processors can afford custom parts.

    Call me when it's also easily affordable and I can pick up the parts at my local Fry's, or better yet, my local supermarket.

    The only real item of interest was that it was made with all IBM parts and Linux.

    ...

    Come to think of it, if Fry's also sold groceries I won't have to shop anywhere else...

    1. Re:Who cares about easily available? by jokumuu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, if you really need a supercomputer, the first step is not to get the computer, but instead the funding. As super computers go, if your needs are served by a distributed computing environmet, an "entry level" supercomputer does not really cost all that much compared to "traditional" supercomputers. Yes we are still talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. (there seems to still be 256 processor 2.8ghz xeon based computers with gig ethernet connectivity on the latest top 500 list) If you need to solve problems that do not work in paralell, you are definitely out of luck.

    2. Re:Who cares about easily available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see that you have no idea what it costs to design circuits. I'll give a hint, before it's sillicon you've burnt A LOT of money, and more will disappear before you start to manufacture.

    3. Re:Who cares about easily available? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      You can design and manufacture all your components as easily and quickly as you can buy servers from IBM???

    4. Re:Who cares about easily available? by sydres · · Score: 1

      not a plug but try aldis cheap groceries and they sell medion computers and accessories I got a 200 gig external hard drive for 69 dollars in a town where the going rate is over 150 for 160 gig drives so maybe that will solve some of your problems

    5. Re:Who cares about easily available? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      In the long run, these will be too cheap to charge.
      Ray Kurzweil told me so.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    6. Re:Who cares about easily available? by paperclip2003 · · Score: 1

      Give it 30 years and yes it will be available on your local home computer ;)

      C64 Specs from 30 years ago:

      Processor = around 1 mhz

      Now processors are around 3800 mhz and doing more per instruction. (that is more that a 4000x increase)

      And I am sure that the modern 160gig hd can hold a billion times more information than any cassette deck.

  20. In other news, SHA1 was broken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    Peaking at 40 TFlops, the beast consists of 2,282 IBM eServer BladeCenter JS20 blade servers housed in 163 BladeCenter chassis, 4,564 64-bit IBM PowerPC 970FX processors, and 140 TB of IBM TotalStorage DS4100 storage servers.

    It's just the thing to find SHA1 collisions of ISO images in 2^56 operations...

  21. Important problems need solving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spanish are going to use this system to calculate how many litres of ice cream are required to satisfy the tourist season, and other important problems faced by the economy.

    NCH

    1. Re:Important problems need solving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. At least, we won't use it for Echelon or nuclear simulations.

      By the way, it can't be used to calculate how many litres of alcohol are required because it's not computable.

  22. Mare Nostrum: the Mediterranean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The literal translation of 'Mare Nostrum' is 'Our Sea' it however referred to the Mediterranean, which was controlled by the Roman Empire.

    In the same way Americans (well USIANS) today refer to Earth as 'Our Planet' (because Earth is controlled and policed by the US Government) and 'Pax Romana' is equivalent to 'Pax Americana.

    1. Re:Mare Nostrum: the Mediterranean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same way Americans (well USIANS) today refer to Earth as 'Our Planet' (because Earth is controlled and policed by the US Government) and 'Pax Romana' is equivalent to 'Pax Americana.

      Wow great explanation. I just couldn't understand why the Romans would call the Mediterranean "Our Sea" until you pulled that brilliant comparison with Americans calling the Earth "Our Planet"! Fantastic!
      Thanks for that!

      Oh, and great work regurgitating the second paragraph of the fucking article! I don't think quite enough mod points have been wasted yet on modding copy+pastes of the article +5 informative!
      !!!

  23. Re:IBM eServers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, for me as Spanish is not a proble is Africa frontier start in the Pirineos, Africa was the kind of the Egyptians and other brilliand cultures. The problem is that some people that live in Spain should be deported because are so much stupid. I'm Spanish I like to be Spanish and for SPAIN is the better contry. I'm a republican man, porn in Barcelona, with all my parents from Barcelona, Ripoll for surname. I love SPAIN.

  24. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    god damn it

  25. Re:IBM eServers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it Madrid or Sevill where Black Pete drops off all the naughty children?

  26. Well yeah,... by Create+an+Account · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...but how fast can it open Photoshop CS?

    1. Re:Well yeah,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy ...but how fast can it open Illustrator CS?

    2. Re:Well yeah,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll tell you, after I finish benchmarking how many floppies I can simultaneously format.

    3. Re:Well yeah,... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      2 min 30 sec...

  27. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol
    fuckin' gooks

  28. That's a beefy computer by C0d1ngM0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful


    but I bet Windows still runs slow on it.

    --
    Coding Monkey.org - Spanging the heavy spade of truth into t
    1. Re:That's a beefy computer by cornychris202 · · Score: 1

      no doubt

  29. DOES THAT COME IN A DESKTOP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    REALY, DOES IT????

  30. Supercomputer = Pile of computers? by ceeam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given enough money how is that impressive anymore? What's the best single-thread-performance machine today?

    1. Re:Supercomputer = Pile of computers? by dsevilla · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yeah, that's the point. Also, they don't even do any advance in programming models. Just MPI/PVM with my old friend fortran or C.

      Haha, but the funny thing is that they'll end doing high performance computing based on Web Services!!

      Best regards,

      diego.

  31. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ken livingstone!

  32. riiight . . . easily available components by Raccroc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just love how every time someone writes about another grid or supercomputer or beowulf cluster they always say "easily available components" as if I could find most of them in a standard IT closet or just run down to the local computer shop and pick them up with my corp. AMEX.

    In what world is 163 BladeCenter chassis, 4,564 64-bit IBM PowerPC 970FX processors, and 140 TB of IBM TotalStorage DS4100 storage servers easily available??? Maybe if you are Big Blue, but then, why would it be more difficult for them to throw together a fully proprietary supercomputer?

    1. Re:riiight . . . easily available components by luvirini · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have the money, the components are readily available and tested. It is allmost allways much more difficult to create everyting from scracth than using components that are allready designed and working. Thus the money needed to build it from scracth would be much higher and timeframe longer.

    2. Re:riiight . . . easily available components by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering the company I work for already has the chassis for the JS20s, I would consider this fairly available.

      The JS20s have the 970 in them -- we use the HS20s which are Intel based.

      Where do you see a problem with "easily available components"?

  33. But really... by nicc777 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...does it have an AGP slot?

    --
    Need an ISP in South Africa?
  34. Re:IBM eServers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm a republican man, porn in Barcelona ...

    umm ... you mean there's Republican porn over there? yuck! ... with all my parents from Barcelona

    Really? ALL of them, no kidding ... well, there goes one more failed genetic experiment. Better luck next time!

  35. Even easier then that... by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 0

    Get a load of Xserves, install Xgrid or something else, plug in, process (it seems it takes about no time to assemble and it runs osX).

    Add more Xserves to get more power...

  36. Mare Nostrum by woah · · Score: 3, Funny
    Mare Nostrum is Latin for "our sea"?

    But I thought it was Ouray Easay!

    What's going on?

    This is all so confusing! I need to take a nap.

  37. /. trying to lure IBM advertising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which is why you're seeing so many IBM articles lately.

    There's trouble brewing, friends -- Sims was laid off for financial reasons, not fired.

  38. article is running to lure IBM ad money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's really simple -- there are serious financial issues at /. Sims was laid off for financial reasons, not fired, and the rest of the publishing group has been warned to increase revenue and decrease costs. Hence running articles like this to please IBM.

  39. supercomputer by pedicabo · · Score: 0

    This looks like a lot of brainpower concentrated in one small area. Who knows? They may even get USB broadband working. Ok I know it's a long shot.

  40. Whoa! Our Mare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must love mares and have sex with them daily!

    ....nasza szkapa? :)

  41. No memory specs? by PornMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one finding it curious that nowhere in the specs do they mention how much RAM there is per node or in the aggregate?

    It mentions how many nodes, how many CPUs, how many racks, how much storage, but not how much RAM.

    --
    500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
    1. Re:No memory specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.. 640k ought to be enough for anyone remember...

    2. Re:No memory specs? by openglx · · Score: 1

      Actually, there aren't any memory specs on the article, neither on the top500 summary. On IBM page http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/j s20/more_info.html here we see that those machines are up to 4GB of RAM. Maybe memory was too expensive and they are running with the enough to boot on? :)

    3. Re:No memory specs? by arootbeer · · Score: 1

      Well, assuming they're loaded up, they're running 4GB/blade = 9.182 TB. The power blades support up to 4 GB of RAM apiece.

  42. OK then by neo_mushroom · · Score: 1

    Some one get these guys one of these computers, see how long it takes for their virii to evolve enough to take over the world!

  43. CELL Supercomputer by Omegalomaniac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The scary thing is, that the CELL with its potential for 25 GFlops of double precision floating point, could rival this system with just 1600 8 SPE units.

    Granted, the CELL isn't exactly off the shelf, and I'm willing to bet 4,564 970FXs will be cheaper than 1600 CELLs for quite some time, so the project still has merit.

    1. Re:CELL Supercomputer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scary thing is, that the CELL with its potential for 25 GFlops of double precision floating point, could rival this system with just 1600 8 SPE units.

      If Sony issued a press release saying that my cock was capable of 25 GFlops/sec I expect a significant percentage of people would believe them. Doesn't make it true.

    2. Re:CELL Supercomputer by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Huh? 1600 Playstation 3's should be pretty cheap in about a year... and I'm willing to bet somebody (like Sony) will attempt to make a supercomputer out of them, just for the publicity!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:CELL Supercomputer by javiercero · · Score: 1

      Sorry but the CELL potential for 25GFlops single precision not double.

    4. Re:CELL Supercomputer by Omegalomaniac · · Score: 1
      Sorry but the CELL potential for 25GFlops single precision not double.
      Nope , it's 256 GFlops single precision. 25 GFlops is for double precision. Granted, this is only for highly parallizable code, but what else does someone use a 1000+ node supercomputer for?
  44. Re:IBM eServers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes, partially political, although the impression was more that it was brought because they knew already that ITER was not going to be in spain. so more or less to hide that.

    Anyway, HP can complain as much as they want. I find that surprising. The Mare Nostrum is a result of many years of colaboration between the UPC and IBM in the form of the CIRI (CEPBA-IBM Research Institute), a center where research on parallel applications and tools is conducted. IBM had the intention to build a large supercomputer out of PowerPCs and blades and they were considering even places outside of the US. People at UPC and particularly the CIRI and the Computer Architecture department started talking with the government to bring the machine here, and along with it, start a new research institute on supercomputing (the BSC, btw my new employer). well that's at least what I've heard here at upc.

    So HP would have wanted to compete??? As far as I know, all research that HP does in barcelona is dedicated to printers ...worse, it could be 4500 itaniums, can you imagine? ;-)

  45. Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a beowulf cluster of these...

  46. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.coattails.net

    niggers

  47. Re:IBM eServers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Africa start in your mind and end over the ground you are ....

  48. THE rogue state. by elucubra · · Score: 1

    If we consider how much of international law it misinterprets, breaks, or simply ignores ( the list is waaaay too long), the US is certainly the primary rogue state.

  49. All it takes anymore... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    from easily available components (like BladeCenter and TotalStorage servers, 970FX PowerPC processors

    Sounds to me like building the biggest supercomputer today is nothing more than throwing more money at it than your compeition. No real technical skill needed beyond beyond that of wiring up your new home entertainment center a few hundred times over.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  50. Didja miss the 'funny' tag there mate? by aug24 · · Score: 1
    "denial of service attacks, spyware, and crapflooding message boards.

    Bit of hint there that the grandpappy was sending up the 'terrorists are everywhere' idiots ;-)

    J.

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  51. it's great but.. by super+admin667 · · Score: 1

    please, when blade servers are considered off the shelf items, let me know. but at the present, most blades run around $2,000 dollars plus, more than what I paid to build my pc from scratch. Still it could probably run doom 3 well enough I suppose..

    1. Re:it's great but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Not more of this "but I can't buy it at the store, so it's not off the shelf!" crap. How many stores sell LVD SCSI drives, rack mount UPS's, Cisco routers, etc ? Just because it's not something joe consumer would buy doesn't mean it's not off the shelf. If you call up IBM and ask for the parts used in that machine, they'll go to their inventory, pull it out, ship it to you, and yank a multi million dollar payment out of your ass. They didn't build hyper-custom parts like the original CRAY machines. In fact, the parts aren't custom at all. That makes them "off the shelf".

  52. Re:You are right America needs to stand up to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes dammit crap flooding message boards is a very grave and serious internatinal warcrime covered under the Geneva Convention. It is against human rights.

    So damn, you are right. Our founding fathers like John Wayne and Gary Cooper would not have stood for it. Damn. We need to get a pre-emptive strike in against rogue states like Europe planning to flood message boards because if we don't it could give the terrorists an advantage.

    damn

  53. Error correction by Redundant+offtopic+t · · Score: 1

    Actually, the cluster began with dual G5 powermac towers (looking kinda strange in racks). They later changed out to the current off the shelf G5 xserves with ECC memory. You probably mis-remembered the reason for the changes as G4 vs G5 rather than non-ECC vs ECC memory.

    I think there was an intermediate update to non-ECC G5 xserves, but I'm not sure about that and I'm too lazy to look it up.

  54. I will help out by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    I will chip in 1 slightly used 3 pronged US power cable, black.

    1. Re:I will help out by greenpenguin · · Score: 1

      I will chip in 1 bust floppy drive

  55. How many are there? by savage1r · · Score: 0

    1 IBM is 2 IBM's are Of course, I sometimes are wrong mod me up scotty

  56. ugh by lifes+a+cluster · · Score: 1

    The thing that most people don't understand, especially when they talk about the parts of a high end cluster being expensive, is the cost of the alternative. I admin a cluster which comes in at .9 Tflops, and cost ~3/4 of a mil. There's a X1 which comes in considerably lower, and cost considerably more. So yes, cluster is still commodity when compared to CRAY or SGI, even if you buy high end components.

  57. Cold War Paranoia about Foreigners' Computers by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Back before the US government had Terrorists to scare us with, there were COMMIES! COMMIES UNDER THE BEDS! Commies Plotting to corrupt our Precious Bodily Fluids! Ohhhh, Nooooooo!!! And instead of Weapons of Mass Destruction, they had NU-CU-Lur Bombs!

    Anyway, the Feds had a bunch of export control laws to prevent Commies from getting Big Computers that they could use to design better Nukes, as well as laws to prevent Commmies (and Americans) from getting crypto.

    • Those of us who were on Usenet 20 years ago remember the first Kremvax announcement (after the Russians had gotten a couple of Vaxes.)
    • The Cray-1 Supercomputer was about the speed of the Pentium 133 doorstop I'm typing on right now (while my regular PC is getting fixed.)
    • The Cray-2 supercomputer was pretty similar to some of the formerly-high-end graphics cards you can get for about $50 these days.
    • The Sony Playstation 2, when it was about to out, violated the Supercomputer export control rules, which is why they were suddenly bumped up a couple of times.
    • Gimongous Privacy-Invading Database Computers of the 1980s had less storage than that iPod in your pocket, and the user interfaces were less friendly.

    Fundamentally, computers do keep getting faster, but they've been Fast Enough for Government Work for a long time - Moore's Law says that just about anything you can buy at WalMart is faster than a high-end niche-market governments-and-big-corporations computer of a decade ago. The ideal computer for terrorism isn't some supercomputer - it's three pounds of wetware that's really pissed off. The way to deal with it is not to clamp down on exports of technology or circle the wagons into a laager to keep the enemy hordes out or declare anybody with interesting oil reserves to be a Rogue State - it's to stop acting like an Evil Empire and pissing people off by supporting oppressive governments around the world.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks