Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Competes In Supercomputer Market
HoboMaster writes "Microsoft is releasing a public beta of Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 in their first attempt to compete in the supercomputer OS market. Gates is planned to speak at the 2005 Supercomputer Conference, which will be Microsoft's first appearance at the conference. Gates, as always, has high hopes for this new version of Windows, even claiming it to be as powerful and easier to use than Linux."
so its super blue screen(s) of death
Normal is Boring!! http://www.dealwithdeals.com/
"easier to use than Linux"
Yes? Where is the part about the high hopes for this operating system?
I think he might own some Microsoft stock.
... well for me, it was clusterfuck.
And I can bet it won't be included with their client systems.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Supercomputers aren't about "Ease of use." They're about speed per dollar. When WCC can beat Linux on price/performance, then people will stand up and take notice. Not before.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The Opteron AMD processor is going into CRAY Supercomputers, so it only makes sense that Microsoft start making Windows for those AMD computers. What's next, a Beowulf cluster of Bill Gates?
Oh You POS
I don't know what the "easy to use" argument precisely means in this arena. The people assembling and managing large clusters to produce supercomputers are in a significantly different league than your average MS-Word user. Not to poo-poo MS or anything, but Gates seems to have forgotten the audience in this case.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Exactly. With microsoft usually charging per processor, the cost of building a super computer could go through the roof. Not to mention that they will probably build in limitations like maximum 4 processors, and to use more, you'll have to buy the enterprise edition, and spend 3 times as much per processor.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Unfortunately, it takes a supercomputer to calculate that answer.
I've read many times here that having Linux in the top500 supercomputers list was not worth marketing because it is a niche. Now Microsoft is marketing a beta of what they dream might enter someday this list. Go figure ...
In what way? It seems the two are equivalent- double click this icon to start a program. Menu bar over there for a list of all programs. Except Linux has a good text interface as well as the GUI. If anything, that gives the edge to Linux.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It's hard to see how MS will gain much market penetration in this area unless it substantially alters its licensing. As I said in another post, "ease of use" isn't exactly going to be a big selling point for the guys putting these kinds of computers together, and OS licensing costs of $0.00 is hard to beat.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
he's actually claiming it's *as powerful* as linux!? why should that interest anyone, unless it's also as free?
... as we'll undoubtedly need a cluster to actually run Vista.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
even claiming it to be as powerful and easier to use than Linux.
I find Linux ease of use to be perfectly acceptable, and since they are not claiming better performance, I don't see an advantage.
The NY Times has this article. The opening paragraphs were a bit more intriguing:
"In January a group of Microsoft researchers set out to discover how much computing power they could buy for less than $4,000 at a standard online retailer. They found the answer at NewEgg.com, where they were able to purchase - for just $3,632 - 9.5 gigaflops of computing speed. That is the amount of computing power offered by a Cray Y-MP supercomputer in 1991 at a cost of $40 million."
The question is, how much will your average cluster be spending on Norton as a result of this?
Does this version continue to use share nothing and thus useful be mostly for high availablity? Or can resources now be shared concurrently between different nodes of the cluster and thus provide better performance?
Nothing says "Product of the Future" like the beta version of a product named "Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003".
Sure, they're doing it to maintain the "2003" branding of the flagship server. But why, less than two months before the end of 2005, are they not even trying to sound modern?
Let us remember that much of Microsoft's revenue comes from the entire server/enterprise category, so it's no surprise Microsoft is going on the offensive and trying to compete with the power of Linux servers. Microsoft may act like its not scared, but clearly they are at least worried about the growing competition of Linux... especially if they always have to remind us how much "better (enter microsoft product here) is better than Linux."
I have to say, I just don't think developers will go for it. First of all, if you're setting up a cluster of, say, 20 machines to run some MPI programs, you're going to be funneling some serious coin microsoft's way.
Secondly, I, like many developers, have been running MPI programs on Linux clusters for some time now. What's my incentive to switch? All I've got is penalties, like having to buy software and stuff. MPI is already free, open source software. So now MS sticks it in their OS and sell it as a new platform?
At least for me, this is too little, too late. I'll do what I've been doing, which is run my parallel code on Linux.
And if my grandmother had wheels she would be a trolley.
bottom line is, until microsoft can build this OS to be HUGELY FASTER than linux, there's no reason to pay extra for something that doesn't have any speed advantages.
i've never heard of the supercomputing crowd complaining about ease of use, they are looking for more calculations for less money, and for that linux/unix is probably still the best choice. there's no reason to pay thousands for an OS that doesn't increase your performance any further than an OS that costs $0
Really? I've only just started switching from Windows to Linux, I have a dual boot Windows XP Pro\Linux Ubuntu machine, the one and only problem I've had is connecting to the internet via my wireless card.
My brother had exactly the same problem on his Windows PC, i.e we can both see the WAN, but can't connect to the internet via the router. He solved his problem before I started installing Ubuntu, so the two arn't related, but Windows is far from perfect, and Linux is far from the disaster you paint it as.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
"ease of use" isn't exactly going to be a big selling point for the guys putting these kinds of computers together
.. OK, that's better:
Excuse me while I find my tinfoil hat....
What if MS is doing this so that it can strongarm universities and research institutions? Something like going to the bean counters and saying "hey, we have this great new OS for supercomputers - we'll give you a reduced rate on it, *AND* a reduced rate on the licenses for the rest of your desktops, if you just agree to kick that smelly, communistic, viral, legally-dubious Linux off your clusters! (Did we mention that if you're using Linux, you might have to give up all your precioussss IP?)"
I'm sure Microsoft will do what it always does, and cheat.
Bill and Steve will see to it that a high-profile research centre (e.g. a university) will get a free supercomputer with a free Supercomputer Edition(TM) of Windows(TM) to play with and there will be much fanfare and positive publicity in the press.
Just like when SGI and intel gave NASA a free 10240-processor Altix (made of itanics).
Stick Men
The Puppy Linux distro makes an absolute joke of Windows XP....
Since when is another OS required for Windows to be joke?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Blue Screens Per Second
1. PHB sees Microsoft adverspamming for Windows Computer Cluster 2003, and believes the drivel. ...
2. PHB makes case to execs, gets capital for an 80-node WCC2K3 cluster for eleventy billion dollars, thanks to Licensing 7.
3. Admins shake their heads in disdain, get the thing running, and walk away.
4. Developers waste time and resources reinventing the wheel.
5. Nodes start to get rooted because the admins didn't harden the system.
6. Organized crime groups use nodes to DDoS websites in the name of extortion.
7.
8. Profit! (for Microsoft, at least).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
They bring very little value to the back end. A typical distributed app is not a rich UI client that needs lots of Windows APIs to play DRM'd movies, so Windows has no advantage there. It's a C, C++, or Fortan (mixed, even) job running MPI over some specialized interconnect hardware.
You also need a good parallel file system which I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that CIFS is probably not the optimal choice - any real system will probably be using a dedicated filer.
However, their strong suit in this space are tools like IDEs. If they can convince folks that using Windows as a front-end to development, then they can make some good inroads.
Right now the supercomputing folks are starting to get interested in Eclipse, and they're trying to head that off, not to mention small ISV's like us.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
And even if MS were so compelled, what really is in it for Redmond? It's probably the smallest market in the world, with a customer base measured in the thousands, and one that already has access to either operating systems with a long multicomputing heritage or to clustered Linux systems that, for the kinds of guys that set up and maintain supercomputer clusters, offers no unreasonable difficulties as far as usability.
I think what we have here is Gates' inferiority complex towards Linux. He desperately wants to have MS in every market, and can't stand the thought of that open source demon increasingly being utilized, so he'll waste money on a product that, even if it were to be a success within that marketplace, would provide an outrageously small amount of revenue.
I suppose MS has money to burn, but if I had that much money to piss away, I'd try to take over the pocket calculator or security alarm markets.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A standard line from Bill, "wait till you see Vista its better", "wait till you see compute its faster".
Amazingly the press continue to take Microsoft at face value on annoucing their version as better when they don't release what they announce.
So sure MS is better at supercomputers... I mean they have such a history in it, just look at the top 500 its just littered with MS boxes.
This isn't Windows v Linux, this is MS Research v IBM Research. The people behind the CPU, Relational databases, reliable messaging and of course the huge amount of work on massively scalable computers. If MS had real ability they'd be working with the big processing boys from the goverment and weather prediction areas.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Specially if it comes bundled with Microsoft Visual Basic for Supercomputing - Science Edition, allowing any computer-illiterate scientist to easily put together simulations without needing to care about multiple-processor optimizations. It will have ready-to-use MSAtomicNuclei.ocx, MSAtmosphere.dll, etc.
You only need to go: Create a form. Drag the AtomView object to the form.
Dim MyAtom(1E100)
For i = 1 to 1E100
My Atom(i) = MSAtom.new(x,y)
Next
Atom(0).Nucleus.Split
Who wants to learn C, and all those threads things??
This is great news, I've always had difficulty interfacing with my supercomputer. Now even Aunt Tilly will be able to run simulations of nuclear explosions!
It's the army of bicycling paper clips, ready to do my bidding, that I look forward to.
... oh, never mind.
I, for one, welcome our
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Seriously, how much "easier" will it be at the cluster level? With Linux, you don't even have to install the OS on the hard drive. It can run off of a CD.
At this level, the extra wizards and such just don't matter.
My initial reaction was, didn't they already have supercomputers? Why is it labled 2003 when we are 47 days from 2006?
An excellent use for these MS supercomputers is to host xbox MMORPGs that enable 10 million players at a time reenacting the opening fight scene from Lord of the Rings: FOTR. Each player will run towards the center, clash, fight and most likely die within the first 30 seconds of gameplay.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Security issues are irrelevant in a lot of cases. Scientific computing isn't done on computers attached to the internet...it is done on intranets consisting of specialized hardware streamlined for the needs of HPC. Most HPC programs don't even attach themselves to ethernet networks, but rather to things like Myrinet (bypass OS calls to reduce overhead GREATLY) that are intended for HPC. Being DDoS'd, or having a 'zombie cluster' etc are not really issues here.
I think the advantage of a MS solution might be ease-of-use, especially in server clusters that are up for hire (that is, up for timesharing). If you are some group performing research that requries lots of power but aren't focused in a CS-related field, you may not have the resources to go use the (often arcane) parallel (MPI) debuggers etc. and churn out a top-grade program for a supercomputer. An MS solution might indeed be cheaper OVERALL because of time-to-solution (time = money). Let's face it, VS.NET is a dream to code in - compared to other well-featured IDE's like Eclipse, it is light-weight, easier to use (Eclipse has major bloat issues), etc. So who knows - as the article mentions, it might indeed become part of an end-to-end scientific process, where the computational parts seamlessly fit in.
Furthermore, everyone who is talking about licenses per processor are not thinking properly...do you really think they would achieve penetration with the barrier to using the software so high? Of course not! Instead of speculating negatively, let's just wait and see what the licensing programs are when the product is released.
My 2 cents
Ohh, I like a good GUI. Note the fact that I said "good." The very thing I love about UNIX is that you can, and probably should, do everything via a text/command interface. It's a lot faster and easier to admin large numbers of UNIX boxes then Windows, in my experience. Not to mention UNIX is quite a bit more flexible when it comes to networking and data sharing.
However, there's some things that gain great benefit from a GUI. Any sort of large scale user management, especially with a directory services type system, tends to be easier on the admin when you can visualize the directory and user account placement within a GUI.
I also like GUI based reporting - you get a much better sense of what's happening when you can see it in a chart or graph in front of you. Data visualization is good stuff. Being trapped in a GUI for administrative tasks isn't.
Windows 2000 and 2003 server have both made a lot of progress when it comes to doing things on the command line but they still fall short of UNIX because of the fact that it's non-trivial to tie the various (and completely different syntaxed) tools together. UNIX shell scripts are easy- learning windows scripting is a lot less easy and more difficult to impliment on many machines.
I'd rather start with a command-line based system and build a GUI on top of it, instead of the other way around. That way, you can always admin things 100% with ssh, customized to your organization.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
>>When I bring hardware home, it works! Try getting those wireless usb devices working in Linux. Possible, sure! Do you just plug it in the slot and put in the CD and it works, not *even* close. Audio on Linux? You've got to be fucking kidding me. What fantasy world does the poster live in where Linux is easier to use than Windows?
What fantasy world do you live in where installing Windows and several additional third-party drivers is "easy"? At least with linux, you can generally avoid most of the driver installs -- they are included in the kernel, and are found automatically, but you might need to tweak a couple things before they work (or work perfectly). I'm amazed when I watch friends talk about Linux being difficult to use, meanwhile they'll spend hours reloading windows (and drivers, etc.) every couple months, if not more often.
More frustrating, if that's the right word, is that people complain about how "difficult" it is to research/make fixes for Linux, but don't even try to fix problems in Windows, opting for a reinstall instead. Kind of an apples and oranges thing, when you think about it.
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
Yeah, rendering, video editing and the other things Apple's xserve's don't need supercomputers.
Science and engineering are *not* the only places where supercomputers matter. You're just bias. Just watch the making of documentary for epIII of star wars, and look at all the shiny G5's hooked up to xserve's with awsome apple cinema display's. Science and engineering may be tilted heavily to windows and linux, but movie editing, 3d rendering etc are even more so geared to osx (well, not as much 3d rendering as movie editing but still)
Finally a slashdot story where no one can possible imagine a beowolf cluster of these.
Windows on the alarm clock? Sign me up for one of those.
:)
Finally I'll be able to use the "my alarm clock didn't work" excuse a few times a week.
Regardless of what the folks who actually use the supercomputer want, there's always this administrator who signs off on the purchase who will say 'Windows, huh? Great. Now we can have one support contract that covers everything!'. The M$ Sales Rep takes him/her out to a couple fancy lunches and comes back with a signed contract.
Uh, okay. You do realize super computers are EXTREMLY costly? There will always be enough experts out there to design an app for you. A scientist isn't likely going to write his own app for a super computer, he would hire someone that could make it work the best. A graphics designer isn't going to build their own distributed rendering software, they're going to get it made from someone else. Your fast car analogy is crap, because it's implying that Linux isn't usable. Just because you can't install it, doesn't mean someone who makes a living doing it can't. In fact, Linux is sooo much easier for something like this over windows it's insane. Only if you forget the fact it's impossible with Windows as it is. MS would be VERY hard pressed to beat Linux is the supercomputing market. Since it is open source, it's very flexible. You can get an entire system, with command line tools, on a floppy disk at around 600kb. Or you canget a run-off-the-cd or even DVD distro, like knoppix. All that and once you've figured thing's out, it's very easy! (Just read the online Linux-From-Scratch tutorials, you can literally take the source for apps, compile it, bootstrap and have your own custom OS as easy as pie)
There aren't going to be newer people who want to build supercomputers but refuse to learn Linux, because there are alrady so many that are linux proficent. If a CEO decides to make a supercomputer, he doesn't make it, he hire's someone. There are plenty of someones who know Linux. It'll be faster in Linux, and believe it or not programming an application in linux and dealing with open source API's is much easier than windows (what the hell is error: 0x432d423a supposed to mean?) so you get faster code and faster development. What advantage does windows offer?
...when you need to run MS Word really, really fast.
There are a few features which Microsoft would have to implement on any OS targetted at cluster computing. Many are not directly within their control.
First, and most important for users, what would be the APIs provided. Would Microsoft package MPI? PVM? Would they use a proprietary technology? XML based technologies are way too heavy for this application.
Second, what interconnect transports would be provided? VIA, Globus, IB, good old stinky rsh encapsulation? What about independent vendors like Myricom and Dolphin? Would these companies be willing to support a substantially different architecture? Would there be enough customer demand for them to support Compute Cluster Server at the outset (MPICH-GM is old old old for Windows, Dolphonics and Scali are pretty well exclusively LINUX)?
Third, what software will Microsoft be providing for remote batch management? You'd need a secure remote shell, good scripting functionality, non-GUI device management, etc.
Lastly, how suitable is the NT kernel to doing this sort of work? VMS was ahead of basically everyone when it came to clustering technology, yet _nobody_ uses or used it for parallel processing. What are the lessons that can be applied to NT?
There are a few clusters built on NT, but most of the ones mentioned on the Beowulf mailing list (and they are few) are networks of workstations with CONDOR installed which do double duty as computer clusters at night.
Who cares if a supercomputer OS is easy to use? The only thing people that use supercomputers care about is speed. Other things supercomputer users care about is compiler efficiency (again for speed.) I don't see Visual Studio cranking out the efficient executables. I'm also quite sure the Joe Schmoe Ph.D in CS, CEE and Physics does not care if an eight year old can navagate the user interface. But he does care whether or not it takes the computer 2 weeks, or 3 months to model galaxy formation. Especially when he knows that there are 7 other teams that just got the same new information from the same conference and are all racing to publish their newest findings.
1991 to today is 14 years, or 9.33 cycles or Moore's law. 40 Mill, halved 10 times is $39,062.50. Since the article is talking about hardware for under $4k, the price is about a tenth of what was predicted.
I'm not drawing any conclusions, just pointing this out.
plus-good, double-plus-good
It's kind of like the way the GUI opened up computing to a lot of people who found a command line interface daunting, to say the least.
Superclippy: It seems you're trying to factor large prime numbers. Would you like to engage the Microsoft Compute Cluster interface?
> You want to run an interpreted language on a supercomputer? Why not hitch a pony up to a Porsche?
Sorry, you're right. Why would anyone run poorly designed, bloated, unsuited software that could make even the fastest hardware seem slow?
Just watch the making of documentary for epIII of star wars, and look at all the shiny G5's hooked up to xserve's with awsome apple cinema display's.
Better yet, watch the end credits - look for the huge AMD logo. Episode III was rendered on Opterons, not XServes.
I do. This isn't microsoft's first try at this. I expect similar results
"Hex, Bugs, and Rockn'Roll"
Yes, and my mom has been saying for the longest time how she wants to operate a supercomputer. Several mom and pops can now own and operate super computers too.
Again, i think the original writer was correct. Supercomputers are for enterprises and government agencies. Even some medium size businesses would have a cluster. But they all have a fulltime sys admin. And if the extent of that sys admins abilities is just a MCSE cert, then god help your company when the latest exploit hits.
Also, keep in mind that if this is using a Windows interface (rather than a shell prompt), it is using easily 3X the resources that a Linux machine without X-windows installed would.
Finally, since when has a first version of of any Microsoft product worked great?? There is a reason why everyone waits til the third edition to really adopt a Microsoft product. But in this case, they are fighting an uphill battle against something that is more scalable, faster, more stable and cheaper by far. Plus it's been tested time and time again.
If Windows could handle the load (and if Microsoft was worth it's salt as an server OS), they would stop using Linux to do all their load bearing. The day Windows cluster appears in the top 10 supercomputers is the day George Bush comes out of the closet, marries Dick Cheney and decides to become an atheist.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
If Windows wants to get in the HPC market, they should start by offering a fortran compiler. Lahey has one for Windows, but for a native UNIX user, the instructions on how to use it on Windows were just about incomprehensible. Strangely, for HPC, Linux, AIX and other UNIX systems are probably much easier to use. And I doubt windows binaries would be as fast anyhow.
They spent billions to make a new Windows which turned out to need a supercomputer to run, and now they are desperately trying to find customers.
This stuff is marketed to the people who say:
Our windows-based programs are too slow. Don't tell me we need to go to programs that are written more efficiently, or that there would be an overall cheaper and superior non-windows-based alternative: I don't want to hear it. Change frightens me. Just give me more power.
I see this mentality all the time. Here's an example from school I remember. This one student would sit and take up multiple windows computers in the computer room to run Matlab. He did this for months.
Did he want to hear that he could invest some time and recode in a fully compiled language and come out way ahead in terms of time? No. Did he want to recode to knock off alot of the computing in a very short time using the school's Linux cluster? No. Did he want to take his heaviest subroutines, write them in a compiled language, and call them from Matlab to speed up his calculations dramatically? No. Did he want to know how to rewrite his Matlab code to maximize vectorization and computation efficiency? No.
He just wanted to throw more power behind what he was comfortable with.
People will buy this stuff.
You do get an reaction - the icon is selected.
You don't always want to open something when you click on it. Sometimes (mostly, I'd wager) you just want to select it for further manipulation.
Why settle for a poor interface just because it's the Windows way? (No doubt there's a way to change KDE's default behavior, and perhaps someone will explain it.)
It wasn't changed because "it's the Windows way", it was changed because it makes more sense. Indeed, Windows tried the "single click to launch" way back in 1996-1997 or so, with "Memphis" (later became IE4) and it was soundly canned by pretty much everyone who used it. KDE copying this idea was not one of its smarter moments.
I'd be interested to see if you can cite any sources for "single-click" to be "better UI" (or even just a well-reasoned argument). Microsoft would have done the reasearch back when they tried it (and Apple probably did some on the same thing way back in the early 80s), but the results are probably not easy to find.
"Gates, as always, has high hopes for this new version of Windows, even claiming it to be as powerful and easier to use than Linux." You mean, Windows is becoming even worse now? I thought he usually claimed, Windows is far superiour to just about everything out there.
To give an idea, 128 nodes will give you at most 512 processors (more becomes EXTREMELY inefficient). 512 processors will net you a place between 300 and 500 on the current top 500 list. This will be very different on the list to be released six months for now... such small clusters might not even show up.
Then there is the user group of HPC systems. It is a VERYsmall market, with a userbase, a group of anministrators and a group of manufacturers traditionally used to UNIX, and now migrating to Linux in droves. Windows is not even duscussed. The announcement of the Windows Compute Cluster edition was cause for great hilarity at the workplace, where jokes like parallel word/excel and high-performance visual basic started floating around. No one will take Microsoft serious in that market.
Perhaps Microsoft will sell some systems to some manufacturers, like in the automotive or pharmaceutical industry. But these guys already know the ways to traditional vendors selling them Linux clusters, vendors like SGI for instance. CHeck the SGI Manufacturing page.
So... will Microsoft compete? So far, they announced an operating system for clusters. Important questions remain:
- Will the OS run headless?
- What low latency networks will be supported?
- Are MPI and OpenMP implementations available?
- what about remote management, remote login and remote copy? (On a side note: why is it that Windows 2003 can't have simple stuff like ssh and scp built in?)
- what applications will be available?
I have to wait and see... i don't expect anything substantial to happen... and if Microsoft does this for prestige, they are wasting their money. -