Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force To Suffer From PS3 Update
tlhIngan writes "The US Air Force, having purchased PS3s for supercomputing research, is now the latest victim of Sony's removal of the Install Other OS feature. It turns out that while their PS3s don't need the firmware update, it will be impossible to replace PS3s that fail. PS3s with the Other OS feature are no longer produced since the Slim was introduced, so replacements will have to come from the existing stock of used PS3s. However, as most gamers have probably updated their PS3s, that used stock is no longer suitable for the USAF's research. In addition, smaller educational clusters using PS3s will share the same fate — unable to replace machines that die in their clusters."
In related news, Sony has been hit with two more lawsuits over this issue.
Apparently, for the particular bit of number-crunching that they were doing, Cell curb-stomped x86. They then concluded that, if you want Cell, your only options are a few absurdly expensive specialist compute servers(IBM makes one, Sony at least has a model number, I think that there are one or two others) or cheap PS3s. Since, when the started, OtherOS was a standard, supported, option, the only "hacking" involved was the inconvenience of having to touch each machine to kick off the install.
Had their algorithm not suited Cell, the PS3 would have been an absurd choice. Since it did, though, it was actually pretty sensible(barring Sony's hard-to-predict action).
The slim PS3s didn't support the Other OS feature from launch, and when they started making the slim models they stopped producing the older ones that did support it. This has been an issue since Sept 2009.
makes ya wonder what will happen to the Folding@Home client stats as PS3s die off and aren't replaced.
And who suffers in the end? Sick kids.
Oh, will someone think of the children!
But those are expensive, defeating the purpose of using PS3s in the first place. They could have gone to IBM and bulk ordered a pile of CELL equipped blade servers but its cheaper to buy the PS3 which Sony, like every other console manufacturer, sells below cost and make up the difference with game sales.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
I don't think the government buys anything from Sony, other than a few consumer electronics for conference room. Most of the time the government purchases from dedicated contractors like Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon, et cetera.
BTW:
A number of those contractors have discovered that dicking with the U.S. Military (example: employees mischarging time) leads to serious consequences. Like millions of dollars in fines. I hope the USAF makes an example of Sony and drags them through the court system, for their false advertising scheme.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
[Citation]
17 U.S.C. 1201(e) (1998)
Exception for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Activities. The DMCA permits circumvention for any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity by or at the direction of a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Agreed. There are many companies out there that do business with the government. Just because Sony discontinued a feature, doesn't mean they won't let a large customer, such as the Army, not have access to a way of configuring their hardware the way they need it configured.
[...] but its cheaper to buy the PS3 which Sony, like every other console manufacturer, sells below cost and make up the difference with game sales.
USAF buys literally tons of loss-leading PS3s but no games? I think you just hit on why Sony doesn't care about the problem the Air Force faces now.
Using PS3s for anything, especially non-gaming research applications seemed like a really bad idea in the first place. A game console is nothing but an overpriced, crippled computer. Sure, the multi-core cell processor might be great for some things, but I doubt that they couldn't have found something better for the same price.
You need to follow Mr. Peabody into the way-back machine to understand why they used PS3s. At the time it offered dramatically more flops per dollar than anything else. Flops are what you really need for all serious simulation, and the more precision, the better. It's only recently that you could get halfway decent double-precision flop rates with GPGPU computing. And even today, you'll need at least a $100 video card to push any significant number of them, plus a PC with a PCIEx16 slot. There has probably never been a cheaper source of flops than a used PS3 until recently, where used PCs with high-end video cards capable of delivering them began to become available. And I suspect that if you run the numbers, a typically-priced (say, gamestop price?) used PS3 will provide more DP FLOPS than a typically-priced used PC. Again, this is in the process of changing; it might be here already. And in any case, Sony has just eliminated the value of the used PS3 for scientific computing. (Those who say it had none previously are ignoring the many benefits of clustering; if a node dies, who cares, aside from the financial impact of its replacement? You can buy used consoles in bulk.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's one boss...
(puts on sunglasses)
...that won't fool us again.
YEAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
I spent many years first as Fedral Sales Manager and then Vice President of Sales dealing almost exclusively with the US Government and its affiliated agencies and contractors. Your statement "I don't think the government buys anything from Sony, other than a few consumer electronics for conference room. Most of the time the government purchases from dedicated contractors like Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon, et cetera." is simply untrue. The US Government purchases a great deal from Sony, see http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-government/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets-mkt-gov-latest-gsacontracts.shtml and http://www.ivci.com/international_videoconferencing_news_gsa_contract_gs-35f-4259d.html and https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/mkt/gov/downloads/gsa_catalog.pdf. This does not even touch upon the COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) purchases where the government agency simply buys what it needs from a local vendor right off of the shelf. There are already procedures in place for prohibiting purchases from vendors that do not meet the terms of their contracts with the US Government. In the case of GSA contracts, they are subject to losing the GSA contract and being prohibited from applying for a new one.
So,... you have no credit cards, don't own a house or a car either, as far as I can tell, because all these things have insanely complicated contracts that the banks can change willy-nilly if they please.
To be fair, not all credit card companies do that. The account agreement I got from my credit union with their credit card was a single page. It contained no arbitration clause and no provision for them to unilaterally change the contract. Go find yourself a local community bank or credit union. Odds are that they will treat you better than the big boys. Added bonus: Most of them didn't steal any of your tax dollars from you either.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.