Slashdot Mirror
Unholy Matrimony? Microsoft and Cray
fetusbear writes with a ZDNet story that says "'Microsoft and Cray are set to unveil on September 16 the Cray CX1, a compact supercomputer running Windows HPC Server 2008. The pair is expected to tout the new offering as "the most affordable supercomputer Cray has ever offered," with pricing starting at $25,000.' Although this would be the lowest cost hardware ever offered by Cray, it would also be the most expensive desktop ever offered by Microsoft."
I beg to differ, I was running it just fine with only 512mb or ram on a 2.39ghz celeron processor. Once I turned off all the eye candy there were no performance issues.
It's probably the only case I can think of where the minimum requirements were at all realistic.
When has MS ever seen extra capacity and said to themselves that those cycles belong to the customer?
Like the linux kernel developers are any better...every OS maker is greedy about increased CPU power. I first ran Linux in 1995 and it isn't that much faster now.
I disagree, but then again, I work in the HPC industry.
1. Standard computers have already taken over all of those jobs that used to require a supercomputer. There's no more market to loose. HPC is a 6-7 billion dollar market. The TAM is growing slower than the rest of the IT industry, but it's still a large niche market.
2. Clusters got really popular for a few years, but have really fallen out of favor at the high end of the HPC market. That said, the difference between a high-end super, and a cluster, is rather small. Thankfully the price difference is shrinking too. Moreover, this product IS a cluster. It looks like an attempt, by Cray, to get into the low end of the HPC market. Cray, like everyone else, would like to be the company taking market share away from itself, rather than let someone else take it.
3. IBM has a compelling strategy of reusing their high-end POWER-X processor super-servers, and selling them as supercomputers. The problem with this, is that they are obscenely expensive as supercomputers. A high-end database server has a whole pile of functionality that is completely unnecessary for HPC jobs, both in hardware, and in software. Big iron servers are also WAY more expensive, per-processor, than a super. As such, IBM is also making supers out of commodity clusers, commodity clusters with CELL coprocessors, and BlueGene, which is much closer to CrayXT than it is to an IBM mainframe or superserver. I would argue that IBM's diversity may work against it, in the HPC market, as it tries to fit a round peg into a square hole.
I'm not sure Cray will be very successful with this CX1 product, or generally, selling to the low-end HPC market. That, however, is not reason to believe that there is no need for venders specialized in HPC systems. Cray has made quite a comeback, in the last few years. The reason one thinks of Cray as a dinosaur, is that the HPC market is so much smaller now, relative to the entire IT industry, compared to the 1980s. Nonetheless, it's still an important niche.
Because by saying it runs Windows, they are implicitly defining the development tools and APIs that it supports.
So an organization that has Windows devs but needs more horsepower is likely to turn to this before looking at a Beowolf cluster.
Now, writing massively parallel code is admittedly a different skill set than writing ordinary desktop or web development, but starting with the same tools and environments gives them at least a head start.
A supercomputer turns all tasks into IO bound problems.
A mainframe turns all tasks into a CPU bound problem.
A microcomputer just runs awhile and crashes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Good point: mutt, for example, is still the fastest emailreader ive ever seen.
And yeah. Its much faster now than in 98.
NO SIG
I think the new kernels are faster.
My Pentium 600 running slackware with a 2.4.10 kernel is a lot slower than my Pentium 600 running debian 4.0r2 with a 2.6.x kernel.