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."

37 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 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
  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 turgid · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.
  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
  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.

  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 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.

    2. 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/

    3. 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. 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?
  10. No doubt HPC will be a requirement... by ivanmarsh · · Score: 4, Funny

    to run Windows 7.

  11. 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 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.)

  12. Hopefully, HP will like this by doublegauss · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  13. 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 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.

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

    But does it run Linux?

  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Re:Penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    (parent comment unrelated)

  19. 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.

  20. 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