Slashdot Mirror


Windows Breaks Into Supercomputer Top 10

yanx0016 writes "Wow, that's some news this week at SuperComputing 08. Apparently Microsoft Windows HPC Server 2008, with a Chinese hardware OEM (Dawning), made #10 on the Top500 list, edging out #11 by only 600 Gflops. Folks were shocked to see Microsoft getting so serious around HPC; I think we are only beginning to see a glimpse of Microsoft in the HPC field."

74 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, mut how much useful stuff is happening? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FLOPS and MIPS are all very well, but if the OS is pissing them away then it does not matter much.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Yeah, mut how much useful stuff is happening? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Funny

      FLOPS and MIPS are all very well, but if the OS is pissing them away then it does not matter much.

      (Interviewing MS HPC Program Manager)

      "Well, yeah it does stuff! Just look. You've got it all right here...Word, Excel, even Access. And just wait until you see how fast the cards fly when you win Solitaire!"

    2. Re:Yeah, mut how much useful stuff is happening? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      considering that FLOPS refers to the number of floating point operations the processor can perform per second, which would be the same regardless of what OS a system is running, i would have to say that your guess is incorrect.

      also, considering that most supercomputers are actually supercomputing clusters, the "supercomputer" in question is probably running more than just a single instance of the OS. since the Dawning 5000A uses Quadcore Opteron processors, and is listed as having 30720 cores, it should have 7680 processors. and since Windows Server 2008 can only use 8 processors (i think HPC is limited to 4), the 5000A must have at minimum 960 nodes. and since each node would be running its own instance of Windows HPC, the Dawning 5000A must be running at least 960 instances of Windows.

      i don't know how Windows HPC compares to Linux or other OSes, but running a bloated OS on a supercomputing cluster would definitely have a large impact on its real world performance.

    3. Re:Yeah, mut how much useful stuff is happening? by spintriae · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well I bet the OS boasts one visually impressive BSoD.

    4. Re:Yeah, mut how much useful stuff is happening? by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The FLOPS are measured by a benchmark program, The Linpack Benchmark that runs under OS overhead, so it would differ with different OSes and probably different configuration parameters in the same OS. I wouldn't be surprized if MS hadn't supplied significant engineering support to get the system tweeked to the T to nail down good numbers on the benchmark suite.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Yeah, mut how much useful stuff is happening? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where do you think the overhead is at? GUI, mouse, I/O? Do you think Internet Explorer is dragging it down?

      File system would be my guess. Those context menus are pretty instant, the population with all those headers is what takes the time. If you had a shortcut method (say, analogous to VMS' old "Install" header cache forcing mechanism) for locating and ID'ing the items in the menu list it would probably help. As it is, I think it's lumped in with the "file index" capability on Windows that everybody turns off to cut back on the annoying disk activity. Just my A$0.02

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  2. Retarded by Directrix1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly, why would anyone want to roll-out something like this on Windows. A lot of extra expense for little practical value.

    --
    Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    1. Re:Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I seriously doubt that anyone with enough to spend on a top 10 supercomputer is worried about the Windows tax.

    2. Re:Retarded by hey! · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, Microsoft has an interesting idea here, to integrate a high performance computer installation with Windows client software such as Excel. Of course, there's no reason at all the back end supercomputer has to be running Windows, other than the fact that Microsoft will sell you the complete software stack, presumably through system integrators.

      Frankly, I don't see why you'd want to do that, but obviously this is out of the box thinking. Maybe they see some application area for this, such as financial services, that is untapped, although if that's the case their timing is not fortuitous...

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Retarded by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Honestly, why would anyone want to roll-out something like this on Windows.
      .

      Development tools. Something Microsoft is very, very, good at.
      And missing from the summary is this little note: Just a year ago, the best Microsoft could do was 116th place based on rankings from Top500.org, which has been benchmarking supercomputers since 1993 with its bi-annual tests it calls "runs."

    4. Re:Retarded by turgid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flagship demo projects like this often get exceedingly big discounts from the vendors.

    5. Re:Retarded by trb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Honestly, why would anyone want to roll-out something like this on Windows.

      Did you ever see the hippos doing the Dance of the Hours in Disney's Fantasia? It's like that.

    6. Re:Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps not, but even if true they should be worried about the unproven track record of Windows on HPC, the crap hardware support, the crap vendor support and the huge question marks over little things like performance and stability and you have to wonder why the hell you'd ever bother. Most software written for HPC systems never go near the OS specific features anyway: you do everything through libraries like MPI which abstract it all away for you. Where is the advantage of Windows on the compute nodes? Login/head nodes: MAYBE. Compute nodes? Pointless.

    7. Re:Retarded by aproposofwhat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate to defend Microsoft, but...

      Crap hardware support? Who cares - you're running numerical calculations, not a bloody game on some tossy video card.

      Crap vendor support? This vendor will have been given full support by Microsoft, and will be equally supportive of their users.

      Performance? They're in the top 10.

      Stability? If you're not dealing with odd hardware / crappy drivers, Windows Server versions are actually fairly stable.

      Why not run your compute nodes under Windows?

      You can actually run Windows Server 2000 and above headless, removing any GUI overhead - so why not?

      I still agree that on any particular hardware configuration, Linux or another *nix will likely be faster, but your experience of desktop applications doesn't necessarily translate to HPC.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    8. Re:Retarded by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now wouldn't it be awesome if they wiped Windows and install Linux after all the PR people leave?

    9. Re:Retarded by symbolset · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is the business case for this for Microsoft? Anyone know? This seems like an area where an executive decided it was simply unacceptable for Windows not to play in this space.

      That's exactly right. Bragging rights. They get to say their platform can scale, and that 1% of the gee-whiz propeller heads that really know their stuff enough to build the world's most powerful supercomputers recognize the advantages of their platform.

      Given the targeted nature of their involvement, a critical eye might look to the methods used to influence those propeller heads. In HPC as in national government the motivation is not perfectly on Total Cost of Ownership and value for price, and even when it truly is there are a few places on Earth where it's permissible to skew that metric a bit by pricing your per-node price seriously into the negative numbers. China might even be such a place. Which would open questions about Microsoft subsidizing high technology in China. Which might invite other questions about what China is actually doing with a computer powerful enough to more perfectly model nuclear explosions. It might be politically sensitive to deny China such a device, but paying for it? That would be... unsavory.

      And 1% bragging rights is better than none, right? I've been one of the guilty ones who've pointed out over and again that Windows isn't ready for heavy lifting, as evidenced by its absence from this list.

      The amazing story here is that in June 1999 Unix owned 498 of the top500 and Linux is well on its way to hit near that mark in only 10 years. Linux added 12 systems to hit 439 and eating share from every other category. If it gains another 12 in June that's 452. There's a good chance it will do better, but it's not likely to hit 498 next year, or even the year after.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    10. Re:Retarded by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Development tools. Something Microsoft is very, very, good at.

      Microsoft development tools are in the category "If this helps you, you are not qualified for this job to begin with". An equivalent would be multiplication table on mathematician's desk or marathon runner on crutches.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    11. Re:Retarded by Rhys · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the same reason that people knock Linux on the desktop -- software, software, and software. The codes that exist for HPC have been developed over years and guess what they target as a platform? UNIX. Do they have a scheduler/queue system? Is it torque/moab? How about a parallel debugger like Totalview? Are the install and cluster control (startup shutdown etc) tools functional and mature? How's hardware fault debugging under windows when headless?

      The real question is what % of cycles do they deliver on it, and what's their job payload look like. VT's Big Mac made a huge splash a few years back, but talking to the admin, they broke it up into 64-core chunks and gave each research group a chunk. Most sat idle of course. Also that meant they didn't have to deal with a scheduler/etc.

      The HPC machine I run never got that high (mid 60s) on the top500 list -- but we do deliver around 85% of the theoretical possible cycles (penalizing us for maintenance windows, dead/crashed nodes, unscheduled nodes, our 10% of the cluster debug queue) over our four year lifespan.

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
  3. All I read was "Windows Breaks"... by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and I thought "hey, that's not news. I've known that for years!"

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:All I read was "Windows Breaks"... by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought it meant a malware infected Desktop hacked into the top 10 rated supercomputer.

  4. Helping power the Great Firewall of China! by crt · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the Dawning site:

    Arming the "Golden Shield" project with comprehensive IT technology
    With the rapid development of the Internet, the public security information construction has become an important component of national information construction. Dawning made contributions in improving information technology level within all of the public security departments, arming the "Golden Shield" project with information technology, equipping the "police" force with digitalization, intensifying the police by technology and comprehensively raising China public security's law enforcement and administrative capacity.

    I like how they quote "police" force.

    1. Re:Helping power the Great Firewall of China! by ddusza · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rooooooooxxxxxxxxaaaannnn!!!! Oops, maybe Sting isn't the project lead on this one....

      --
      Don't fear the penguins
  5. Cost per MIP or how many CALs by RichMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So how many CALs are required to access the system?

    And if I want to make the system available to a different researcher every 2 hours how much is it going to cost them to be license compliant?

    How much cpu power am I going to need to compute the licensing costs?

    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sam/lic_cal.mspx

  6. there are lots of Windows developers out there. by khasim · · Score: 4, Informative

    That is, programmers who are familiar with Windows more than other systems.

    And Microsoft is also looking to roll out a new language that is supposed to make parallel programming much easier for those programmers.

    If it works, there would be a LOT more apps that take advantage of these systems.

    1. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by devjj · · Score: 2, Funny

      And you expect to find that in a Microsoft product?

    2. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is possible, even if not entirely likely.

      Developing a language and compiler that takes advantage of multiple CPUs (especially if it's scaling the number of CPUs) is something that a lot of research (or money). MS does have this. Whether they use it effectively is another matter.

      Also, remember that they are not unfamiliar with HPC abstraction. Direct3D abstracts the architecture of the GPU, and GPUs have been parallel processors for a decade or so.

    3. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by BasharTeg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, actually. There are many concurrency projects for .NET. Take a look at declarative languages like F#, PLINQ (parallel LINQ), Parallel C#, Polyphonic C#

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_programming_language

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLINQ

      http://www.parallelcsharp.com/

      http://research.microsoft.com/~nick/polyphony/

    4. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not a gaming PC... yet.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    5. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by remmelt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're getting your car fixed by the milkman?

      Supercomputing and parallel computing are different than building regular apps and websites. Why would you want to get the wrong programmers for the job?

    6. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Problem is they've missed the boat. Linux already has compilers for multiple CPUs

      Look at this chart..

      http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/os

      Windows HPC 2008 is on 4 machines out of 500. (+1 is windows 2003 if you want to count that)
      Linux is on 454 out of 500 super computers

      Which Operating System do you think is going to have better tools to support Super Computing?

      Also I am hoping you mentioned Direct3D as to get a point across and you're not suggesting that Direct3D be used on these machines?

    7. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also I am hoping you mentioned Direct3D as to get a point across and you're not suggesting that Direct3D be used on these machines?

      No, he very clearly gave an analogy, using Direct3D to show that similar (albeit on a far smaller scale) parallelization problems have already been solved, that this is not completely unknown territory. One could also infer from this analogy that the only real difference that might be a major obstacle is scale.

      My question to you, and to folks who ask questions like the one you just asked, is what happened to your reading comprehension? Many people ask questions like this that have very obvious answers which should be apparent to anyone who actually read the comment in question. The ability to know that this is the case is a very valuable thing; did you ever think to mentally reclaim it from the public school system (or whomever) that took it away from you?

      You could get upset with me for asking you that, maybe you can throw a few insults my way or maybe the moderators can play the knight-in-shining-armor and mod me down to -1 for it so that they can feel better about themselves, but that would constitute an evasion of the issue I am raising and I believe you know it. I'm sorry to appear to single you out -- I actually see a lot of this and you happened to be the first one I saw today. May you have the patience and forebearance to understand what I am really saying instead of getting on your high horse and reacting to a perceived insult.

    8. Re:there are lots of Windows developers out there. by pete_norm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Problem is they've missed the boat. Linux already has compilers for multiple CPUs

      Look at this chart..

      http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/os

      Windows HPC 2008 is on 4 machines out of 500. (+1 is windows 2003 if you want to count that)
      Linux is on 454 out of 500 super computers

      Which Operating System do you think is going to have better tools to support Super Computing?

      Problem is they've missed the boat. Windows already has all the tools needed for desktop computing

      Look at this chart..

      http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8

      Windows has 90% of the market
      Linux has less than 1%

      Which Operating System do you think is going to have better tools for desktop computing?
      __________________________

      For all of you angry mods... i know it's a flawed analogy (and it's not even about cars...), but the parent was saying Microsoft should not even try since they're not at the top of the game. I think it's a pretty stupid way to think. Let them all try and develop new things. Someone will eventually come out with something that makes parralel computing easier and we'll all gain something from it even if it come from MS.

  7. McColo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shortly after coming online, they noticed that it broke a speed record downloading "instructions" from abilena.podolsk-mo.ru

  8. You get so excited about your new supercomputer... by monktus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then all you get is, "It looks like you're decoding the human genome. Would you like some help?"

    --
    Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
  9. Off topic, but I have to mention it by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    edging out #11 by only 600 Gflops

    Emphasis mine.

    Maybe I'm suffering from a case of advancing years, but I couldn't help but be amazed by this metric. These days it is indeed small, but another part of me remembers being a fifteen year old kid amazed at how absolutely great his C64 was.

    I wonder exactly how many years a C64 would have to run to make up a single seconds worth of that difference. How long would a C64 have to run to perform 600 Gflop? How long would every single C64 ever made have to run? I wonder.

    You'd have to run some integer-only 6502 IEEE floating point library or something like that to figure out how long a single floating point operation would take on the C64. Then multiply by 600G.

    Would it be a few years? A few millenia? Blue-green algae?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Off topic, but I have to mention it by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, just because I'm strange I had to go and figure it out.

      A C64, according to this guy runs at about 320 flops.

      So, it would take that C64 600*10^9 / 320 = 1,875,000,000 seconds. That's 59.46 years.

      Wiki says there were 30 million C64 units ever made.

      So that would be 1,875,000,000 seconds / 30,000,000 = 62.5 seconds.

      It would take every single C64 ever made about a minute to make up the difference.

      Wow.

      Crap I'm old. =)

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    2. Re:Off topic, but I have to mention it by drharris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish I had mod points! We need more nerds like you around here. +1 Informative!!

    3. Re:Off topic, but I have to mention it by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A C64, according to this guy runs at about 320 flops.

      That just can't be. I remember the Programmer's Reference Manual showing most normal instructions finishing in 2 or 3 clocks, or maybe 350,000 IPS. I can't imagine that FLOPS would be 1,000 times slower than other opcodes. I mean, I'm pretty certain I could re-implement them in assembler in many fewer than 1,000 instructions.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Off topic, but I have to mention it by dacut · · Score: 3, Informative

      Keep in mind: you're talking about a processor which doesn't even have integer multiplication, let alone any floating point operations. And you have only three 8-bit registers to perform these operations in. Executing 1k instructions for even a basic FLOP is not inconceivable here.

    5. Re:Off topic, but I have to mention it by kramulous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another scary thing: I clocked the GPU in my desktop at 450 GFlops yesterday (nbody crap). Admittedly, single precision, but still.

      --
      .
    6. Re:Off topic, but I have to mention it by goodster · · Score: 2, Informative

      FLOPS = FLoating Point Operations Per Second

      The C64 has no floating point unit in hardware. All floating point math had to be done through software emulation. It's a lot of extra work.

      The C64 may have "fast" bytewise integer math in comparison, but there's a lot of overhead when you try to do floating point in an integer system.

    7. Re:Off topic, but I have to mention it by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, here's another data point. In C64 BASIC, floats were the default datatype. I distinctly remember that FORI=1TO100:NEXT took right at 1 second, giving 100 FLOPS. However, that also includes the overhead from the world's. slowest. interpreter. I'd think surely calling the same functions from assembly would be less terrible.

      Not that any of this should detract from the original point: supercomputers are mind-bogglingly fast when compared to the hardware a lot of us here grew up with.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  10. No doubt HPC will be a requirement... by ivanmarsh · · Score: 4, Funny

    to run Windows 7.

  11. Re:i must by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can you imagine a chair being thrown through the system administrator's window?

  12. From the article, pricing is by joeflies · · Score: 5, Informative

    "With the release of HPC Server 2008 a few weeks ago, Microsoft also offered an academic version priced at $15 per node to generate interest. By comparison, a commercial license runs $450 per node"

    1. Re:From the article, pricing is by RichMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The price per node is $450 commercial.

      The #10 place was achieved with 30720 cores.

      That is $13,840,000 for the HPC Server licenses. I presume each comes with the stanadard 50 or 100 CAL's.

      Beyond that you are licensing 30720 cal's per each new user that gets access to the system.

    2. Re:From the article, pricing is by Anpheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Each node probably has 4 CPUs and 4 cores each, which reduces the price significantly, to only $28 for the commercial version, or about a dollar per node for the academic version.

      That's not bad. And of course you don't understand the CALs, but hey, making erroneous statements can get you modded insightful so maybe I should spout something disingenuous about Linux, like it costs $699 to license it from SCO or something.

      (For the uninformed, not all CALs are created equally and the parent is assuming that these are named licenses that must be purchased for each user. Many different kinds of CALs exist, and I suspect these are either physical unit licenses or concurrent access licenses, i.e.: you purchase 1 per node, period.)

    3. Re:From the article, pricing is by baggins2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the point he was trying to make is
      (For the uninformed, not all CALs are created equally and the parent is assuming that these are named licenses that must be purchased for each user. Many different kinds of CALs exist, and I suspect these are either physical unit licenses or concurrent access licenses, i.e.: you purchase 1 per node, period.)
      From an IT management perspective this is one of the biggest BS headaches around.
      CEO - 'So you have to pay extra to connect to the server even after you paid for the server software'
      IT - 'Yes $35 dollars per seat or we could go by server connection'
      CEO - 'So it's simple then we just multiply number of employees by number by $35'
      IT = 'No, it's by connection. If a computer is connecting to a server it needs a call or the server needs a CAL for a connection. We need to figure out which is cheaper for us. Has nothing to do with whether a person is using the computer. Here's an estimate'
      CEO - 'Holy crap, okay be done with it'.
      IT - 'Well we have got to decide if we want everyone to have full access to the Exchange Server'
      CEO - 'Well multiply by $35 and be done with it'
      IT - 'Well that's more like $75 to $100 depending on how many CALS we get'.
      Ad nauseam explaining all the different CALS and different licensing options.

      Actually how the conversation got started was by handing the 3 required quotes to Purchasing. Three different prices from three different Certified MS vendors. None able to totally explain why they differed and all willing to say we would be compliant if we purchased these.
      The question which came back was why do 4 $475 dollar servers end up costing us $7000.
      Then we got into client and office suite licensing OEM vs non-OEM.


      But basically they studied and learned in depth enough about it that NT4 was the last server version purchased.

      So basically if they had only required a $699 license to SCO we would probably be still using Windows Servers.
      So while MS classes fill the young techies head with knowledge on CALs, other OS classes are concentrating on different protocols and how email servers, web servers, dhcp servers ... actually work.
      We kind of find more pride in fixing the problem, and less in endurance phone calls to MS tech support,and intricate knowledge of MS licensing options.

      --
      He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
  13. the power of 100,000 BSODs at once by swschrad · · Score: 3, Funny

    and 500 screens showing "allow or deny?"

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  14. Hopefully, HP will like this by doublegauss · · Score: 5, Funny

    For once, a computer that deserves the "Vista capable" sticker.

  15. Obligatory by westbake · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you imagine a botnet of those?

    I can.

    --
    I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
    1. Re:Obligatory by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The main reason Windows is such a bot magnet is its huge need for constant care and feeding. Joe Sixpack who just bought his new computer at Walmart is in no position to provide this. Presumably the PRC has more resources.

      Also, if I were setting up a botnet, I'd avoid infecting computers that belonged to a government that was known to apply the death penalty frequently, both officially and privately.

    2. Re:Obligatory by andy_t_roo · · Score: 4, Funny

      actually,
          40% Funny
          30% Insightful
          20% Overrated

      -- i agree with about 20% of people, a botnet run with windows would be overrated compared to one run off another system, its just quicker to build a windows one.

  16. It's all about the benjamins, baby by jon3k · · Score: 2

    Software and hardware cost (seperated) per GFLOP please.

  17. Re:i must by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But does it run Linux?

  18. Potentially bogus by Greg+Lindahl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A couple of years ago I was surprised when one of my HPC customers issued a press release saying that their machine ran Windows HPC. The high-speed interconnect we'd sold them had no Windows drivers. You can guess what was going on: MicroSoft paid for the press release, and the machine actually ran Linux.

    Dawning's previous fast machine ran Linux.

    1. Re:Potentially bogus by leoxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is most interesting to me is that in the case of HPC, the situation between Windows and Linux is reversed. Linux has overwhelming market share in HPC, compared to Windows status as a niche player (and that is being generous). Despite this fact, Microsoft regularly gets fawning coverage in the media for their HPC efforts, far more than they should be if you consider their marketshare. It's like PC Magazine going on and on about all the latest developments in the Linux desktop market.

    2. Re:Potentially bogus by El+Royo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps if "Linux" employed the ad agency Microsoft did you'd be seeing those articles?

      --
      Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
  19. Re:Does not compute. M$ is not for HPC. by devjj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I stopped reading your post when I got to "M$". I don't like the company and avoid their products as much as possible, but if you're going to wear your bias on your sleeve you probably don't have anything valuable to add to the discussion.

  20. Had to be a break-in... by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Funny

    nobody in their right mind would let Windows in willingly.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  21. Re:Does not compute. M$ is not for HPC. by dedazo · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Erris" and "right handed" (who replied to you) are just two of twitter's 14 sockpuppet accounts.

    See this thread for a recent fun shill session.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  22. Re:Does not compute. M$ is not for HPC. by dedazo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, the mods go either way, mostly. We're into deep offtopic territory here now. It really depends on whether or not people with mod points think that a) his drivel is valuable; and b) whether or not his shilling is "OK" because of (a).

    Read this if you have time. It's linked from the journal that documents his gaming of the moderation system, but it captures the whole thing very well. That's who you're dealing with here, so I generally recommend just stepping away or risk getting some twitter on your shoes, which is generally not hygienic :)

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  23. Windows systems are in top500 are declining by Lennie · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's missing in the article is that there are only a few windows-based systems in the top500 and there numbers have been declining over the years.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
    1. Re:Windows systems are in top500 are declining by NullProg · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's missing in the article is that there are only a few windows-based systems in the top500 and there numbers have been declining over the years.

      Actually, Microsofts share has increased, they went from nothing to 5 installs in a few years.
      http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/osfam

      "OS Family" "Count" "Share %"
      Linux 439 87.80 %
      Windows 5 1.00 %
      Unix 23 4.60 %
      BSD Based 1 0.20 %
      Mixed 31 6.20 %
      Mac OS 1 0.20 %

      I congratulate Microsoft on making the top ten. I'm not sure if the 5 HPC Windows installations do anything useful other than provide PR for Microsoft Marketing (TM). This is from a company that charges a CAL to print to a server.

      That being said, I'm pretty sure the Microsoft solution won't allow you to mix and match different computers (and OS to a certain extent) like you can do with Linux HPC. Knowing Microsoft, you can't reuse your valid NT/2000/2003/2008 server licences within the cluster. Past history has shown any update from Microsoft will take down the whole cluster instead of a single node (London Stock Exchange). Microsoft probably will provide better cluster management software making it a better choice for customers requiring HPC without having in-house HPC knowledge.

      Linux Magazine has some good articles on HPC for linux http://www.linux-mag.com/solutions/hpc

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
  24. Norton Antivirus Score? by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Funny

    So how many gigaflops does Norton Antivirus use on that puppy?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  25. The OS is very important by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you have a huge multi-CPU multi-threading system then internal OS data structure scalability and performance are very important for anything except very trivial applications. "OS pissing" basically acts as a scaling function for Amdahl's Law.

    It is one thing to measure Drystones etc, or some other simple grunt-measuring metric, but that does not realistically stress the OS's influence on how the system will perform on huge complex number crunching models.

    Microsoft has only been in this game for a short time and only recently got support for 256 cores. Getting support is one thing, getting **good**, optimised, support is quite another and that will take some time to get right.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:The OS is very important by malevolentjelly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft has only been in this game for a short time and only recently got support for 256 cores. Getting support is one thing, getting **good**, optimised, support is quite another and that will take some time to get right.

      I would argue that NT as a server platform is older than Linux as a server platform. I remember it being noted in a CS text book about the far higher SQL performance on Microsoft and Solaris systems when compared to linux, for instance, and that having much to do with the system architecture. I believe people use it because it's more optimized and has a more efficient underlying architecture. At NCSA, which is down the street from me, they run a pretty serious Windows HPC 2008 cluster, and they have very good things to say about its performance compared to the linux systems. The deployment time is also another plus, which is really remarkable for a cluster. One of the biggest issues, though, is issue resolution. When they have some sort of issue (don't let your windows 98 imaginations run wild, I am talking about little hiccups here) Microsoft usually has a hotfix or patch out in hours. The problem resolution and support positively topple any linux distribution and even Sun.

      I would say that Windows HPC 2008 will be a pretty serious offering for small businesses that prefer to use easier to maintain Windows-based IT infrastructures. With enough time in cluster computing, they'll probably start picking up more enterprise customers as well. It's really nothing to laugh at-- it's the only solid non-unix offering, which is a big step ahead for companies not trapped in the 70's technology-wise.

      Maybe with this global economic crisis, more companies will embrace this technology in order to cut IT and support overhead. You can crunch the numbers on a team of unix guys versus a couple of NT guys and a license. Support and effective administration infrastructure goes a long way. I think Microsoft is going to take back some of this market where Linux got ahead because Microsoft simply had no comparable offering.

  26. Re:Penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they measure the performance with or without effect of antivirus software?

    (parent comment unrelated)

  27. Supercomputing for dummies? by mrfriendly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really, I thought windows was for dummies. (hint, everyone should agree and nod in confusion as to why there is a supercomputer running windows)

  28. Re:Does not compute. M$ is not for HPC. by Ralish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is wrong with " M$ "?

    Nothing is wrong with "M$", in the same sense that nothing is wrong with someone referring to Linux as "linsux" and open-source as "open-sores". The thing is, it tends to make you look somewhat immature.

    If you can present a compelling coherent argument, you don't need to use lame decade old snipes about whatever subject matter you are discussing. If you use them in a compelling argument, it usually just makes the people you are out to persuade have a lesser opinion of what you wrote, and thus, you have sacrificed persuasive power.

    It comes down to maturity for the most part and just simply putting forward a good argument.

  29. An attempt to artificially inflate my linux ego: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    #10 on the list uses a AMD x86_64 Opteron Quad Core @ 1900 MHz and has 30720 cores and pumps out 180600 GFlops.

    #8 on the list uses a AMD x86_64 Opteron Quad Core @ 2100 MHz and has 30976 cores and pumps out 205000 GFlops.

    #10 runs windows, #8 runs linux.

    Working through this: Gflops/# of cores/Mhz per core I get:

    #10 with 3.094 Gflops/Mhz and #8 with 3.151 Gflop/Mhz

    This leaves the linux machine getting 57 more KFlops per Mhz than the windows box.

    disclaimer: Totally useless mental farking, without knowing more about the systems other components and more about the processor generations it's silly to assume the 57 KFlops is purely due to the OS, but hey, it's windows and everyone loves an easy target. :D

  30. So why does anybody need... by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 2, Funny

    So why does anybody need a cluster of MS Windows servers to run MS Exchange so that people can merely read their email?

    If MS can rake up a machine to hit Nr 10 in the performance stakes why can't it make a regular server that can cope with the BAU workloads of medium-sized businesses?

  31. Vista Capable by node+3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    And even *that* computer doesn't run Vista...

    (yeah, I know, but still)

  32. Practicality by Reibisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work for an engineering firm that is constantly running numerical analysis as part of our primary business. We run about 500 Linux boxes (with varying numbers of cores) arranged into multiple clusters. Our desktops run Windows.

    Our pre-processing tools are Windows-based and our post-processing tools are Windows-based. Institutional knowledge/experience and mature tools means that this isn't going to change. Our in-house solvers are Linux-based not by choice, but because Microsoft doesn't offer a cost-effective solution for running our simulations on Windows boxes.

    Even though we've developed utilities to make the process as smooth as possible, having Linux as part of the process chain is still an enormous pain and one we'd like to resolve. We've been watching Windows HPC with interest and can only hope for the price point to become reasonable.

    Although Windows remains in poor regard with many here, there are many companies in the business of engineering simulation that would happily welcome Windows HPC.