Slashdot Mirror
New Top 500 Supercomputer List
geaux and other readers let us know that the new Top 500 Supercomputer list is out. The top two both break the Petaflops barrier: LANL's IBM "RoadRunner" and ORNL's Cray XT5 "Jaguar." (Contrary to our discussion a few days back, IBM's last-minute upgrade of RoadRunner salvaged the top spot for Big Blue. Kind of like bidding on eBay.) The top six all run in excess of 400 Teraflops. HP has more systems in the top 500 than IBM, reversing the order of the previous list. Both Intel and AMD issued press releases crowing over their wins, and both are correct — AMD highlights its presence in 7 of the top 10, while Intel boasts that 379 of the top 500 use their chips.
has the Top 500 Supercomputer List been slashdotted already?
Wily Coyote certified Genius was said Monday to be disappointed that the Road Runner had yet again managed to elude him but denied that the Road Runner had demonstrated more brains than him.
"Although it may appear that the Road Runner is smarter due to the fact that I have fallen off cliffs, blown myself up and run into brick walls in fact I am significantly more intelligent and am an ACME top engineer"
IBM's Media Minder for Road Runner passed on a single comment
"MIP MIP"
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Where's Skynet?
Only the top 23 run Vista well.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
They sure do like to brag:
http://www.microsoft.com/hpc/en/us/case-studies.aspx
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
NVIDIA Tesla -- if not it should be.
HP has more systems in the top 500 than IBM
Something tells me it is more impressive to have majority stake in the top 10 super computers than in the remaining 490.
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
Here's a related article with covers more details about the list
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Way to go guys - you just slashdotted top500.org :'(
For the record, how long would one of them take to crack 256-bit AES?
Too bad there's no Buy It Now option on the RoadRunner. :(
For a Cray upon my wrist
Because life's a simulation
So I'll give the knobs a twist.
Now reality has schism'd
And I wonder if I'm missed
Because I've gone into recursion
And my manager is pissed.
Burma Shave
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
bit a shame that site like top500.org which symbolizes dreamed horsepower and advertise 24/7 HA systems cannot withstand sudden increase in page hits. Those, who are preaching water, but drinking wine...
I don't think IBM/Los Alamos suddenly plopped down something in response to cray at the last minute (frankly, I don't think you could move that fast).
Any hardware upgrades were almost certainly in plan, and if there were none, they've had 6 months of tuning to extract better numbers oout of what they had.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 6 months, the Cray without any additional hardware managed a better number than RoadRunner without additional hardware. However, such a victory is diminished somewhat by the energy the Cray undoubtedly consumes to acheive what performance they do get.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
While the number itself is highly synthetic, it isn't necessarily out of date any more than any other single benchmark. HPCC attempts to score more stuff through a more varied test suite, but any one score of the suite is equally capable of being called irrelevant or uninteresting.
That said, there are a number of interesting items in the list. Cray's #2 showcased AMD's current generation's IO capabilities to the extent they've never been showcased before (right before they lose that exclusive benefit with Intel's Nehalem). IBM's non-x86 configurations show fantastic performance and even more drastic performance/watt (though I looked at the IBM website and they certainly price those QS22s up there, for a platform that is tricky to get the benefit out of).
But outside of exotic HT based interconnects and non-x86 servers, it is accurate to say mostly they are play-it-safe configurations that tie commodity equipment together with varying degrees of commodity networking equipment. It's a safe thing to do that people know how to do, and they can do it without making a unique custom solution the big companies wouldn't be able to productize on a small scale. I admit it is a shame, as I'd love to see more things along the lines of the Cray configuration, but none of the likely candidates seem to be willing to make that sort of investment.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Technically impressive, absolute given, as the current top few offer unique technologies (Cray's Interconnect, IBM's processors).
From a profitability standpoint, undoubtedly the more successful a vendor is closer to the top of the list, the more they undoubtedly had to give up margin-wise for the bragging rights.
From a marketability standpoint, things get a tad awkward I think for the vendors at the top. IBM has Cell and BlueGene showcased, which we all understand can be used to great ends at the expense of a more complicated programming model (though HPC is already so parallel, they shouldn't be too bothered by this aspect of Cell), but in terms of more day-to-day operations, the sole bragging point relevant to the common market they get is that they know how to deliver and help architect 9,000 systems to work efficiently together (which is not a small feat, but the hardware itself has too high a barrier to get into the common market). For Cray, I honestly am surprised they have stuck around with only this niche market and still have held on. Their IO architecture is interesting, but of lower value at more common scales. These systems are certainly not cheap, but they are up against stiff competition willing to slice prices to grandstand about success.
The other configurations are made out of servers and processors and networking equipment that can more readily be used by a wider audience. So as cool as the exotic tech is, I think the commodity aspects are more compelling to the profitable customers for these vendors. Given the type of HP's share, HP may be quite ecstatic with the current list.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Not to diminish the scale any, but...
The average time to crack it wouldn't require exhausting key space, the chances are very low that you would have to.
Also, the type of operations make a huge difference. Top500 is a specific set of 64-bit precision operations being measured. These systems may be much faster at the AES calculation.
That said, no matter how you fiddle the math, it comes out to a uselessly long time even assuming they had *one* protected piece of data they needed to function (given my laptop has about a dozen AES encrypted streams for utterly boring linux shells, the signal-to-noise of important encrypted data v. uninmportant is pretty against cracking too.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Just imagine a beow-- fuck it.
To me, the Cray Jaguar is actually two machines: an XT4 cluster (which was around 400 Teraflop/s back in June) and the XT5 cluster. Cray completely redesigned the switching architecture, the memory management, and the cooling to create the XT5. The XT5 really is a completely different machine. Cray seem determined to take #1 spot, but combining the XT4 and XT5 clusters for a better overall measurement has the disadvantage of making the XT5 look less efficient.
IBM has retained the crown with a system that has fewer processors and uses half the energy. By comparison, the Jaguar is a lumbering beast that uses far more power and requires far more real estate. However, if you look at the performance of the XT5 alone, those figures get more competetive.
That's correct
Here's the droids you've been looking for:
http://www.top500.org/charts/list/32/os
Linux has dropped to only 77.8%, although specific other linux versions make up another 5% (approx)
And windows has had a huge increase to .2%
Good going! :)
The most amazing thing on the Top500 site is that number 10 runs Windows! W00T! Go, Microsoft, Go!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Contrary to our discussion a few days back, IBM's last-minute upgrade of RoadRunner salvaged the top spot for Big Blue.
While the IBM machine is still technically the world's fastest, the referenced article claims that Jaguar is the world's fastest supercomputer for OPEN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, which is true. The Roadrunner system, on the other hand, is mainly used in classified research.
Other than for historical comparisons, what's the point of tracking the top "500" when nearly half the list turns over between June and November?
The 500th computer on the 11/2008 list hits an Rmax of 12.6 TFlops. That computer would have been #270 in June, so all computers below 270 in June were essentially wiped off the list in 6 months (not accounting for the ones that upgraded of course).
From the list http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/osfam
the Linux share is 87%, Windows is 1% (Less than the Desktop share of Ubuntu).
More info here: http://www.hpcwire.com/topic/processors/Tokyo_Tech_Boosts_TSUBAME_Super_with_GPUs.html
Way to go guys - you and I just slashdotted top500.org :'(
Fixed that for you. ;-)
Remember when Apple used to claim that they were in the super computer league. Now I don't even see Apple in the top 500--HP and IBM make up nearly 75% of the total and even a bunch of dells are listed.
Perhaps Apple should try networking a cluster of iPods or Apple TV units.
Where are the days thats Apple ran the ads of a "super computer in box." The Mac OS barely even qualifies as 64-bit these days.
I could have sworn they claimed an Rpeak of 1.6 petaflops for Jaguar, yet Top500 lists it as 1.3. Or were they unable to get the whole configuration to run a single job in time?
Also, I guess Los Alamos must have added some rather than just tuned, because the Rpeak rose on Roadrunner (given the nature of Rpeak, only new hardware can explain increases.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
They moved to consumer space and Intel processors. The one impressive showing in the Top500 they had was probably at least in part to prove 'see, PPC is powerful, buy us instead of Intel systems!'. Now they don't need that market leverage to vindicate their desktop processor choice, and it's simply not worth it to them as it has no relevance to the high-margin market they are successfully pursuing.
It terms as 'barely even qualifies as 64-bit', that seems a strange characterization. I would say it either is or it isn't, not that it is 'barely'.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Microsoft is currently in the throw money at the market phase of trying to get adoption. They will help subsidize a cluster purchase even if it will effectively be all-the-time linux, so long as you will submit a Top500 score running their OS.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Are these computers connected to the internet and providing some valuable service to its owners or the public? or is there a bunch of tech's sitting in a dark room playing WoW?
There are lies, damn lies and statistics (or as they like to call it now, "Marketing").
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
How Ironic that the only reference to "Sun" in this discussion on the Top500 is about a star, and not the company, or it's storage, or it's filesystem, or it's supercomputer (1 out of 500).
Crispi
Its all been said before over and over. You just need to sit and see what happens. Its just like the S1070good once you have it.