Slashdot Mirror


Linux Claims 4 of the Top 5 Supercomputer Spots

Anonymous Coward writes to tell us that the November 2005 list of supercomputers has been published. Certainly something to note is that four of the top five use linux. Relatedly Multiflow writes "CNET is reporting that the number of supercomputers on the Top500 list which use Intel Itanium 2 microprocessors has fallen by almost 50% in the past year. While new higher performance Itanium chips are in the pipeline, the article reports that 64 bit Xeons and Opterons have increased their representation on Top500."

12 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Source? by PMoonlite · · Score: 2, Informative

    Does someone have a source that tells what OS these things run? I'm not seeing it in either article.

    --
    -- Moderation in all things, exceptions to all rules --
  2. linux? Not exactly. by daknapp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where, exactly, did you get the information that these systems "run linux?"

    In the Blue/Gene system, for example, the user front-end nodes use linux, but the OS for the system itself is very definitely NOT linux. So acting as if the system runs off a linux kernel is misleading, to say the very least!

  3. Re:Google = the world's biggest supercomputer by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm sure Google is up there in terms of size, but this list is about performance. Google's computers do searching which is different in terms of processing requirements than raw number crunching like simulating a nuclear explosion. Google also probably wouldn't release any specifications anyway.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  4. Re:well duh by Eightyford · · Score: 3, Informative

    These aren't off the shelf desktops. What else would you expect them to run, windows ME?

    HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, SCO UNIX, Mac OS X, free/open/netBSD...? Palm OS?

  5. Re:linux? Not exactly. by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

    May I suggest the following paper:

    J. E. Moreira, G. Almási, C. Archer, R. Bellofatto, P. Bergner, J. R. Brunheroto, M. Brutman, J. G. Castaños, P. G. Crumley, M. Gupta, T. Inglett, D. Lieber, D. Limpert, P. McCarthy, M. Megerian, M. Mendell, M. Mundy, D. Reed, R. K. Sahoo, A. Sanomiya, R. Shok, B. Smith, and G. G. Stewart: Blue Gene/L programming and operating environment.

    Summary: It's not all Linux.

  6. Re:One Supercomputer? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Informative

    As far as the Top500 is concerned, I think the answer is yes. (And this explains why SETI@HOME does not count as a supercomputer for the purpose of compiling the Top500 list.)

  7. Re:linux? Not exactly. by daknapp · · Score: 5, Informative

    In fact, here is the most relevent passage from the article:

    The computational core of 65,536 compute nodes is partitioned into 1,024 logical processing sets, called psets. Each pset consists of one I/O node running Linux and 64 compute nodes running a custom compute node kernel(CNK).
  8. Re:yeah well would you want to pay for m$ by ZakuSage · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well yes, but they could easilly go for other free options other then Linux. FreeBSD, for example.

  9. In case you were wondering... by vectorian798 · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...the one in the top 5 that is not running Linux is ASCI Purple, and it is running AIX. In case you haven't heard of it, AIX is a version of Unix developed by IBM:

    IBM AIX 5L
    Wikipedia: AIX Operating System

  10. Less duh, more history by fm6 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The alternative is Unix, which is what most supercomputers used to run. Or more precisely, they ran proprietary OSs that had started out as ports of Unix to their particular hardware. Then in the late 90s everybody realized that they couldn't afford to keep developing their own processors, and started shifting to commodity processors, such as Itanium. Rather than go to the expense of porting their own OSs to the new processors, they just adopted Linux. A commodity OS for a commodity processor, if you will.

    I was working at SGI in 1999 when they made their Itanium/Linux move. A lot of customers (and employees for that matter) would have liked SGI to port its version of Unix, Irix, to the Itanium. But that was just too expensive. Instead, SGI promised to continue selling the MIPS/Irix Origin line, in addition to the Linux/Itanium Altix line. So Irix is still alive — as a legacy system. If you check the Top 500 list you'll find several Altix systems but not a single Origin system.

  11. Re:*yawn* (Ahem...) by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you look up how the top500 benchmark, and most of the others, slapping together a heap of boxes doesn't get you anything. To actually get a decent score on parallel DP linpack, or simulation codes used as benchmarks, you need a fast, very low latency interconnect between the nodes, excellent synchronization, and fast disk access.

    Even the allegedly "off the shelf" systems contain an awful lot of not off the shelf hardware. Case in point would be PNNL's Itanium cluster http://www.emsl.pnl.gov/capabs/mscf.shtml/ (at 1000 or so nodes). At SC2003 I chatted with people I know from there, and they mentioned that they had four (4) Quadrics http://www.quadrics.com/ interconnect cards Per Node, plus extra switches, in order to get the bandwidth up high enough. Even a cheap cluster will add Myrinet (at about $1500/node when the switch is factored in), and start worrying about topology after the first few dozen nodes are installed.

    There are clusters (basically networks of workstations), and then there are supercomputers.

    --
    the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  12. Re:linux? Not exactly. by __aanekd3853 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The compute nodes of Blue Gene/L do not run anything that may be called an OS. They basically run a single application thread per processor, and they do not do any sophisticated system work at all (no context switches, the single user process has access to all the memory, etc). The system tasks are concentrated in the so-called I/O-nodes, and those run Linux. So all the system-related things there are Linux indeed. See this paper, for instance.

    Note that I/O nodes and not "front-end" nodes. All the front-end machines (there are many) run Linux as well.

    All the user-level stuff (the programming model, tools, compilers, etc) is standard Linux, too.

    So, is it Linux?

    [Disclaimer: I have worked on some system aspects of the beast, but this post is not sanctioned by BG/L team or IBM or LLNL. I am not disclosing anything proprietary here - all this is open info that can be found in many papers on the subject. Check out IBM Journal of R&D for a wealth of information.