Slashdot Mirror
Student and Professor Build Budget Supercomputer
Luke writes "This past winter Calvin College professor Joel Adams and then Calvin senior Tim Brom built Microwulf, a portable supercomputer with 26.25 gigaflops peak performance, that cost less than $2,500 to construct, becoming the most cost-efficient supercomputer anywhere that Adams knows of. "It's small enough to check on an airplane or fit next to a desk," said Brom. Instead of a bunch of researchers having to share a single Beowulf cluster supercomputer, now each researcher can have their own."
http://www.calvin.edu/~adams/research/microwulf/bu dget/
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ AM2 CPU x 4
It's two clicks from the summary.
Slack++
How we know is more important than what we know.
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ AM2 CPU $67.50 * 4 = $270
Main Memory: Kingston DDR2-667 1GByte RAM $48.49 * 8 + $4.99sh = $392.91
Power Supply: (can't beat price): $76.00
Network adapter (node to switch): (cant beat their price) $164.00
Network adapter (switch to node): (cant beat their price) $15
Switch: Trendware TEG-S80TXE 8-port Gigabit Ethernet Switch $46.99+$7.04sh = $54.03
Hard drive: Seagate 7200 250GB SATA hard drive $69.99
DVD/CD drive: (can't beat their price): $19
Cooling: (can't beat their price): $32
Fan protective grills: (can't beat their price): $10
KVM: (can't beat their price): $50 Grand total (incl. 15 in hardware): 1416.89 $1000 saved by using Newegg!
Revolutionary? Everything old is new again...
http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/cluster/
http://news.taborcommunications.com/msgget.jsp?mi
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/ -- a 7U chassis that holds 14 blades, and is a bit spendy, but not completely unreasonable for some situations
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8177 -- My personal favorite, this page talks about several small portable miniclusters that have been made over the last six or seven years...
Yes, 8 cores of Athlon64 is faster than 8 cores of low power VIA CPU's from several years ago, but the concept isn't revolutionary, and there isn't a lot of headline worthy engineering that goes into a project like this... I'm sure it's a very handy tool, and I'm not suggested it shouldn't have been built, or that it was entirely trivial to build, but in the end, it's just four ordinary motherboards and ethernet.
Sorry for replying to myself, but I found an interesting paper about the subject. Seems that a PS3 should have Rpeak of 14 Gflop/s with double precision floating point operations. Sounds to me that with a proper clustering solution a four-node PS3 cluster would be significantly faster than Microwulf. And it would probably be a smaller, too :)
Indeed. After I saw the component prices I was left dumbfounded. I mean, AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processors at 165 dollars a pop? A kingston 1GB DDR-667 stick of RAM at 124 dollars? Are they on drugs? I mean, I've just bought an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ EE for 68euros (the 3800+ was selling for 59 euros) and each kingston 1GB DDR-800 stick for 46 euros. Where did all the rest of the money went?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Yes. A single processor will perform several steps in one cycle. Typically, the steps are something like:
1. fetch (an instruction from memory)
2. decode the instruction
3. execute the instruction
4. access (some memory location)
5. writeback (some values calculated during this cycle)
In reality, this cycle is usually more complex and processors are designed to predict certain events in order to pack more into a single processor cycle. On top of this, note that the processors used in this machine are all dual-core processors. This means that instead of the 4 processors listed on the hardware manifest, it's really more like 8 processors (well, not quite).
No.
Hey, those computer engineering classes I was forced to take as a part of my CS major have actually proven useful! Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
The basic definition of a supercomputer is a system which has top performance compared to other computer systems (within the top 500 or 100).
In the past, this could only be achieved by having custom CPU's to perform pipelining or parallel processing. Processors in the Cray supercomputers had extremely deep vector pipelines, which was good for three-dimensional simulations like CFD or computer animation. But other systems followed the parallel processing method. The Connection machine had 2^16 one bit processors which was good for encryption/decryption. Other systems used standard CPU's (Intel 80x86's, DEC Alpha's and M680x0's) connected together through a high-speed bus network.
The different types of systems could be defined according to how these processed instructions/data.
SISD - Single Instruction, Single Data - Early home computer
SIMD - Single Instruction, Multiple Data - Vector processors
MISD - Multiple Instruction, Single Data - Fault tolerant systems
MIMD - Multiple Instruction, Multiple Data - Parallel processing CPU's
Some systems had hardwared interconnect configurations - either a 2D square grid, a 3D square grid or torus network, or even star networks, while others had dynamic routing capability. Transputers only knew about the adjacent processors in the four compass directions (NESW).
But all of these techniques have been incorporated into mainstream CPU's now - you now have dual-core and quad-core CPU's that can be used by laptops.
Modern day methods are to make the systems super-scalar. Multi-core CPU's can be arranged side by side onto multi-CPU boards which in turn can be rack mounted into chassis which communicate through high-speed interconnect systems. There is no limit on the number of racks that can be used except space and money.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
But you aren't really a supercomputer at that point, you're a cluster. These days the line is more blurred than in the past but more or less the difference is interconnect speed. In a real supercomputer, there are very high speed interconnects, so you can run things that heavily rely on one part communicating with another, like particle simulations. That's why the US Department of Energy buys so many, rather than clusters. They do things like weather simulation and simulation of nuclear weapons, where every node as to be able to talk to every other node with essentially no penalty.
Now if you have a job that doesn't use a lot of inter-node communication, like say 3D rendering, then a cluster is a better answer. Normal hardware with Ethernet interconnects. Works great and is cheap since you can use commodity parts. But don't confuse that cluster with a real super computer, you throw one of those intense inter node problem at it, it'll fall over because the interconnects are too slow.
Unfortunately these days people really blur the distinction. You'll see systems on the top 500 list that are really questionable. It'll be commodity hardware connected with something like infiniband. Ok, great, that is faster (both more bandwidth and less latency) than Ethernet, but it still isn't necessairily up to what you'd get from a real supercomputer.
However in the case of this deal, no, not a super computer. It's a small cluster and they are just calling it a super computer as marketing, effectively.