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.
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?
SETI@home gets 495 teraFLOPS, according to this site: http://boincstats.com/stats/project_graph.php?pr=sah
Sure, it's not one supercomputer, but it still does more calculations for one purpose than any other single supercomputer can.
Hmm, no, the summary does not say that at all. Maybe you misread the '500'? ;)
Come again? FTS:
The top two both break the Petaflops barrier
AKA 1000 TeraFlops.
The top six all run in excess of 400 Teraflops.
(I don't know how many are over the 500Tflop barrier but those are the computers between the 1PetaFlop and 400Tflop mark. ;-)
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Hmm, no, the summary does not say that at all. Maybe you misread the '500'? ;)
if the summary is correct than most of the top 6 computers run faster than that
Maybe you misread the 'most'? 8)
Whatever the exact number, the summary clearly says that there are at least 2 supercomputers achieving more than 1 Petaflop, which is over twice Seti's performance. So your statement about there being no faster supercomputer than Seti is still incorrect.
The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
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?
On the other hand, the Folding @ Home project, which is actually doing something useful with all those cycles, has broken the PetaFLOP mark, and did so over a year ago.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
A device that could check a billion billion (1018) AES keys per second would require about 3*10^51 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.(Wikipedia)
A round can now be done with 16 table lookups and 12 32-bit exclusive-or operations, followed by four 32-bit exclusive-or operations in the AddRoundKey step.
(Wikipedia)
Assuming 14 rounds for your 256 bit encryption thats 42 operations per round. At a trillion operations/second you get 1*10^12/42(love that number)=23,809,523,809, call it 24 billion rounds per second. Divide by a billion billion to try to match Wikipedia's number: 1/24,000,000,000= 41*10^-10. We can add those nine zeros straight over to get 41/3*10^61 years.
Did I do that right?
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
what does it matter if we can't communicate back when/if we find a signal? the impact such knowledge would have on human society, on human history, would be tremendous just by the philosophical implications alone.
should we stop all fundamental science research just because they don't have immediate practical or technological applications? there's something to be said for the search of knowledge for its own sake. and not knowing whether or not you will ever find an answer to a particular scientific question, or if you will succeed in a particular objective, is hardly a good reason for not even trying.
do you think the inventor of the first microscope knew beforehand that he was paving the way for the scientific field of microbiology? do you think the first bacteriologists knew that their pioneering work would eventually lead to the discovery of antibiotics and revolutionize modern medicine?
it's impossible to know exactly what consequences will follow the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that, whatever happens, it will have a profound impact on how humanity perceives itself and their relationship with the cosmos. whether we're alone in the universe is one of the fundamental questions of science, philosophy, and theology. just because answering it will not make computers run faster or cure cancer doesn't mean it's not worth asking.
No, because it takes thousands of those to match what the top computers can do.
Look at the specifications for the high end one:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_s1070.html
345 GFlops
The bottom of the top500 list is now 12.64 Tflop/s. So to make it to the bottom of the top500, you need 36 top of the line teslas (and that assumes you lose nothing to network issues, which isn't true). So call it at least 40 teslas to get to the bottom of the list.
To get to the top of the list, you'd need about 3500 teslas.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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! :)
We can add those nine zeros straight over to get 41/3*10^61 years. Did I do that right?
Close enough. The bigger problem (yes, really) is that you'll be long out of energy even if you built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured 100% of its energy at 100% efficiency for the rest of its lifetime, since each operation requires at least kT/2 = 2*10^-23J under ideal conditions. Even at E=mc^2 you'll only get 8.6*10^69 = 2^233 operations out of the Sun. So even if you could build an ungodly massively parallel computer that could break AES256 in a reasonable time, you wouldn't have the power to operate it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings